Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

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.

Evil Dead & The Conjuring

This past week I jumped back on the adrenaline pumping wagon that is Horror movies.

  The horror genre is without a doubt one of my favorites. A couple of my favorite movies are horror films [The Shinning, Bram Stoker's Dracula '93, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari] That being said, it's in my opinion the hardest genre to do correctly and successfully.
  A great horror movie isn't just something that presents scary faces, ghosts and gross out moments, it's all about the feeling. A heavy lingering atmosphere is was accelerates an ok scary movie to a great horror film. The sensation of unease and primal wrench in your gut is what a great horror film should create; and not just through it's images. Music, camera angles, lighting are the biggest factors in creating that eery, haunting feeling. Last Friday I dragged my friends along to The Conjuring and was thrilled that after years and years, we have finally got a solid, no nonsense horror classic. But first....

  My review of The Evil Dead has the most hits out of any reviews on Miss Morgan At The Movies.
Now when I originally watched The Evil Dead I was quite terrified. I did not have a good time. BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S SUCH A GREAT HORRO MOVIE. It freaked me the hell out. And for that reason I did NOT want to check out what I thought would be the ultra-ultra-mega-super gross/violent/CGI filled reboot "Evil Dead", but by the end of the review I broke down and admitted I would probably end up seeing it with my friend and fellow cult film lover, Thomas Hacker whom I also watched and enjoyed The Evil Dead 2 with...no Army of Darkness yet...

Evil Dead

Directed By: Fede Alvarez
Released: 2013
Staring: Jane Levy, Shilo Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas & Elizabeth Blackmore
Rated: R

  Oh The Evil Dead with it's undying horde of fans, spin offs and even a musical! It truly is a genre of it's own. Zombie-ish, Cabin Teen genre right? Right. Anyway...Evil Dead I can't say I watched this film completely untouched by the influence it's predecessors. I mean...having watched Evil Dead 1 & 2 and ultimately enjoying them both for what they are, I feel like I am apart of the fandom...I know what real fans of the series want and expect. And all I have to say is there are only two opinions for hardcore Evil Dead fans. Love and Hate.

Jane Levy get's in deep in Evil Dead (2013)

   Here's the first thing I must note. Evil Dead is NOT a remake. It's a new story, a new group of kids, but.....The car is there, the deer (anters) are there, the cutting off of the hand is there, vomiting blood in the mouth is there, the sawed off shotgun is there, the CHAINSAW IS THERE. It's ALL there. Evil Dead, to me, seemed to say "Hey! We respect the original, we love the original and guess what? All of that still happened! This is just 30 years after the fact" Repercussions, a loop in events almost. Think J.J. Abrams Star Trek (please don't kill me for that one) It has the same...stuff, but obviously has been modernized and doesn't contain some of the hoke that a low budget movie of the 80's was bound to have.

Jane Levy as Mia sits atop a familiar car in Evil Dead (2013)    

"Cut it, CUT IT!"
No turkey to carve, but plenty of rotting flesh
Evil Dead (2013)

    You have character that represent the past characters. At first Thomas and I kept asking "Where's Ash? WHERE THE HECK IS ASH!" But as the film went on we caught it...Ash has three letters in his name, Mia has 3 letters in her name...MIA IS ASH! And for me...it all worked. Once that hit me, the re-imagining with nods to the past, I sat back and let the references come. This is what I think will split the true fans...they'll either enjoy it for the clever, sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle nods to the past, or they'll hate it for "shitting on the original" Whenever a film has such a passionate group of people behind it, someone is gonna get upset. I just really hope fans can and will enjoy it for what it is...don't try to make it into the new Evil Dead because it's not and nothing ever can be, but there's no reason why we can't all just sit around a burning cabin chanting the incantations of The Book of the Dead TOGETHER!

What I liked most about this new take was there was actually a plot line. The group taking Mia to the cabin to help her quit drugs is not only justification for them being there, but also ads a bit of psychological creepiness to it...the friends first think she's just hallucinating, it's gets worse blah, blah...but yes. I liked that part. BUT WHERE WAS BRUCE CAMPBELL? #LOLZ #ForeverBadass

Horror soundtracks are sometimes difficult because of drawn out pauses for effect and the screechy scratchy can get annoying and not particularly enjoyable to listen to, but Evil Dead composer Roque Baños did a fantastic job.
Crazy scary, fitting, and unique. Check out this track that accompanied the final scene. Sirens, Chanting, Piano it has it all.

  

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it? -Honestly I have to say YES. It's gross. Horribly gross, but so was the original. And I'm sooo happy it's not just a remake with the exact same characters and plot line...it actually HAS a plot line now. I wasn't too thrilled with the ending...I won't tell you what happens but the end end did bring it down a couple notches...no sunshine...NO.
  -Also, MAKE-UP. They used REAL MAKE-UP, fluids, and PROSTHETICS. This is one of the reasons I think my expectations were surpassed. I truly thought majority of mutilations in the film would be done with CGI (it must die) BUT for the most part, it was REAL...well real make-up. LIKE THE ORIGINAL. I think I'll cry from happiness.

2. Would I recommend it? -Uhh...unless you are a fan of the original or ultra gore-horror I have to say no. For the average movie goer who wants a good ol' horror movie for a couple jumps and scares this is not the movie for you. It's just too much (as with the original) tree rape, blood vomit-in-mouth, razor blade tongue-cut, chainsaw motherf*cker dismemberment...I mean Thomas and I were laughing, and cheering but for the average person...No, I can not knowingly suggest this to my friends who are not gore-enthusiast.

  While it has it's fair share of scares, Evil Dead is without a doubt a gross out horror film. Created to scare it's viewers through blood, guts, and severed limbs. You'll be watching through your hands, but that's because of the mutilated bits of flesh and body parts flying across the screen...not from genuine suspense and scares...The Conjuring on the other hand proved to have all these kinds of scares and more!

The Conjuring

Directed by: James Wan

Released: 2013

Staring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Joey King & children ensamble.

Rated: R

  It's been quite a while since I actually went to the theater to see a horror movie; the last one I remeber was 1408 with my sister back in 2007! Besides mockumentary superstar Paranormal Activity, my generation is not one to flock to the theater in great throngs to catch the newest horror flick; however, smart and classic, The Conjuring might be just the film to change all of that.

  With it's trending on twitter almost every night since it's release on the 19th, The Conjuring is an undeniable hit with a sequel soon to come.
The Conjuring is laden with suspense and eye covering, jump out of your seat moments.

  The 70's and 80's were cinema's golden years as far as horror films go. They were everywhere and they were good. The Exorcist, The Shining, The Omen, Poltergeist, these are good old fashion horror films that terrified audiences and for good reason. They're not hokey (well the Exorcist might be now but back then it was horrifying) and they play on a level of psychological horror as much as physical.

I quite enjoyed Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren
The Conjuring (2013)

   Just as Evil Dead has has it's own (multiple) sub-genres, {Gore, Zombie, Devil/Demonic Possession ect.} The Conjuring is primarily a haunted house film. The Hunted House movie has to be one of my favorite sub-genres of horror. The Conjuring sticks to the atmosphere of the classics without becoming old and tiresome. A familiar story is refreshed by clever camera angles & tricks, and unexpected scares.

  The Conjuring tells the story of demonologist, ghost hunters, and married couple Ed and Lorraine Warren as they attempt to shed the Perron family of the ghosts who inhabit their home and torment their children.

So I when I wasn't cowering in my seat, I was admiring Patrick Wilson...He's kind of a fox...and as I whispered to Sarah "Him...nice butt"
Patrick Wilson (NOT Will Arnett) in The Conjuring (2013)

 While it starts a bit slow, The Conjuring develops into an epic of  engaging and spine tingling suspense.  The scares, as in any horror/ haunted house film start slowly, quietly and innocently then escalate to a scream inducing collage created by a creepy score, even creepier back story, and prime ghost effects.
  The special effects weren't over done or ridiculous, and when a certain character was possessed I was again thrilled that the scary visage appeared to be created by make-up and prosthetics...maybe Hollywood has been reading my blog!
 
  As I said before a great horror film isn't just in it's scary images and gross out moments, it's in the atmosphere; the feeling, and The Conjuring consistently carries that feeling of apprehension and dread. You really don't want to know where the clapping is coming from, you don't want to see what's reflected in the mirror, you don't want them to go in the basement, but at the same time you NEED to! THAT is exactly the uneasy feeling a horror film should generate for it's viewers. That is exactly what The Conjuring brings to the table in old school fashion. According to interviews directed James Wan stated that he modeled the "cinematography and atmosphere after vintage 1970's horror films" This was very evident in the title sequence...color, font, scrolling and all.

How can a font and color be so scary?

  For me one of the most horrifying parts of the film was something so small yet had a huge impact in the creating of an atmosphere full of terror and panic. Near the climax of the film, there is a scene where Ed Warren & Roger Perron are attempting the rescue Roger's wife Carolyn from the locked home after discovering it's her the demon spirit is after. The camera is situated behind the two men as they attempt to break open the front door and once the door is finally flung open there is this unholy sound that rushes out of the house and seemingly into the audience. It's simply part of the score, nothing the characters react to as the camera flies above, but as they charge into the house a blare of deep horns, and voices, engulf the audience as if all the tortured souls of that house are bleeding through the speakers.
...is that too dramatic of description? Well it had me sinking about 6 inches lower into my seat. I felt like my soul and just dropped into the pits of hell...at first I didn't even know if it was in the movie because it was sometime I had never experienced before in a film. Such perfect blending of camera work and musical score...utterly terrifying.
   Music by Joseph Bishara

We are NEVER playing the clap game.
Lili Taylor in The Conjuring (2013)

"Based on a True Story" as always is fabricated for film, but after some research it's been discover the house in which the Perron family lived did have quite the history. As far as the questioned credibility of the Warren's...They worked deeply in the Amityville Horror case which is alluded to in the end of the film and therefore a possibility for the sequel...to say their work was or wasn't real would force one to admit whether one does or does not believe in the supernatural, demons ect. Either way they were a  fascinating couple; both in real life and on screen.

  The Conjuring is not without it's flaws. Like I said, the first 20 minutes are a bit slow but pick up quickly. The recurring instance concerning the Annabelle doll was unnecessary. It was perfect for an opening and character introduction but not needed after that. I felt the same away when the Warren's daughter kept getting brought up. It seemed like something that was thrown into the script as an after thought and doesn't really do anything for the film except remind the audience that the Warren's have a daughter too...other than these minor flaws this was, without a doubt, the best horror movie I've seen in a very, very, long time.

Ok I could have gone without literally a ghost in sheets but I see what you were going for.
The Conjuring (2013)

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it?
     -Yes. Yes. Yes. I am particularly particular about my horror movies and The Conjuring took the haunting and suspenseful vibe of the classics of the 70's & 80's and modernized it.

2. See it in Theaters or wait for DVD?
     -I say see it in THEATERS for sure! When was the last time you went to a horror film in theaters? I hadn't since 2007 and I had forgotten how fun it can be! That sound ridiculous, but when you watch a horror film with such a large group of people you have the chance to see how differently every reacts to  films like this. Some scream, some jump, some talk nervously throughout the who film, and other's just cover their faces completely. It was filmed in scope and really utilizes surround sound. Even though some may pass it off as "just a horror movie" I really think this is one to see NOW and in theaters!

The Great Gatsby

Because no one ever accused Baz Luhrmann of being subtle....

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Released: 2013

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, & Elizabeth Debicki

Rated: PG-13

Times Viewed: 1

  We have been awaiting this film for quite some time, oh yes we have. It seemed every time we were teased with the promise that it was near it's release date, Gatsby would get pushed back even farther. With all the drama surrounding the nearly six month delay I can say old spot, it was worth the wait.

Baz Luhrmann's adaption of The Great Gatsby not only stays true to the book, but infuses the energy and spirit of the jazz age through out every frame, costume, and song. 

One of the first stills released, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, Carrey Mulligan, & Joel Edgerton in "The Great Gatsby"

  So far Gatsby hasn't been the hit with critics as many thought it would be. But why? Majority of reactions can be summed up in this quote from a review by David Denby 

    

     "Luhrmann’s vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he’s less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste."

         

    Ouch, David, Ouch. 

  

First of all I'd like to ask...Have any of these reviewers seen Moulin Rouge? A fabulous feast for the senses and successful with a wide range of audiences, I can not only see, but feel Baz Luhrmann's presence in Gatsby just as strongly as in Moulin Rouge! Over the top, lavish musical productions is what Baz Luhrmann DOES. That's his creative style. As with any great director, Chris Nolan to Woody Allen, there is a definite style and creative choices that are made that make that director one of notoriety. When I see words like "vulgarity" and "absence of taste" associated with Baz I truly question wether these critics knew what they were getting in to when they entered Gatsby. 

  

  Now, had Baz deviated far from the original source material, THAT would garner scrutiny and scorn. But when a film stays so true to the novel, and clearly expresses F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the Jazz Age I see nothing wrong. I find his over the top production enjoyable because through it he uses Fitzgerald's own words to tell this tale. I mean this quite literally, most of the movie is word for word from the book. And there is a reason The Great Gatsby is THE great American novel. 

Statue of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Rice Park in St. Paul)- taken by yours truly.

  The Great Gatsby is not a love story, I mean it is but  let's put on our freshman high school caps and analyze what this story is about. The Great Gatsby is MINNESOTA author F. Scott Fitzgerald's critique of his own generation. On the outside it seems all about the glitz and glamour. Cheap booze and fast women. Soaring stalks and underground parties. Deep down though, Fitzgerald see a generation decomposing from within. No new thoughts. No progression. No hope. The Great Gatsby is a commentary on basically everything Fitzgerald thought was wrong with the 20's. Old money vs. New money, corruption of young bright minds and so one. Fitzgerald focus' on the positives through the character of Gatsby who represents hope and the American Dream. I can honestly say since I read it in eighth grade, The Great Gatsby has been one of my favorite books. If you haven't read it, buck up and do it....it's only 218 pages.

  Back to the film. Everything that Fitzgerald so passionately put in his novel, Baz puts into the film and illustrates with vivid imagery and narration. The few changes Baz incorporates only aid the ORIGINAL story and justifies the narration throughout the film. 

Now that I'm done boring you with my obsessive analysis (even though I love analysis) I'll get to the pretty parts. 

  This movie is visually intoxicating. The pristine colors, sparkle and shine of each and every frame envelope the audience in the world of Gatsby. I said before, some critics are calling it vulgar and tasteless but it's the excitement, the expensiveness, and the lavish lives lived in the 20's that Luhrmann is trying so hard to communicate with the audiences. And for me it worked! By using such saturated colors, shining diamond accessories and rich materials there was not a dull moment therefore no time for me to become distracted from the story. In my opinion, the more I have to look at in a film, the more entranced and focused I'll be. Perhaps for some critics it's the exact opposite, perhaps it's my theatrical background, but I loved the design production on this film.

Director Baz Luhrmann on the set of "The Great Gatsby"

  Now you all know I have a long standing love hate relationship with CGI/3D. When it's needed USE it, when it's not, GET IT THE HECK AWAY. In Gatsby, the 3D and CGI work MADE this film. You're not just watching party goers bustled through a corridor straining to join the festivities, you ARE one of those party goers. These party scenes are where the 3D is truly justified; with flying confetti and popping champagne bottles the effect was mesmerizing and exciting!  

"I thought you knew old sport! I'm afraid I'm not a very good host...I'm Gatsby"
And the entire theater internally screamed.

The Music

  I, as many did, reacted rather hesitantly when I discover hip-hop star Jay-Z would be producing the music for Gatsby. Don't get me wrong, over the years I've expanded my musical tastes and Jay-Z is actually now a favorite of mine as far as hip-hop goes, but it was just the idea of him working with the iconic music of the 20's that concerned me. However, when I finally heard a sample from the film all my reserves were blown away. I am a huge fan of post juke box swing and jazz that has been popping up from the likes of Parov Stelar ect. and the music of Gatsby seemed to follow the same lines. By blending classics like "Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Go That Swing" "Ain't Misbehaving" "Bang, Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" with modern club beats, Jay-Z creates a sound that shows the younger audiences the energy felt by the people of the Jazz Age. I know that energy because the 1920's is one of my favorite time periods musically, but in today's generation, there are so few young people who are aware of how amazing and vivacious the music was in the 20's.  Craig Armstrong also contributes a BEAUTIFUL original score that I'll look forward to purchasing as well. Armstrong is a clever devil utilizing not only modern, but classical tunes into the score. The use of "Toccata and Fudge in D minor" as the party goers enter Gatsby's house and George Gershwin's, who I might add is the original fuser of classical music and modern jazz, "Rhapsody in Blue" to reveal our hero were definite high points that I looved.  Here's a sampler of some of the music used in the film. I highly suggest that you purchase it for yourself. It'll have to dancing like it's 1922 for sure.

The Costumes

  Costumes, uh Costumes were BEAUTIFUL! As with many period pieces, designers choose to incorporate either a later or earlier decade along with the one they're working in i.e. my review of Anna Karenina. Catherine Martin (Baz Luhrmann's wife) was not only the costume designer, but head of the production design. This, I believe, is why the film had such a great continuity to it. Costumes, in my opinion are second players to all the actors; dress one character incorrectly and it can throw off not only the character, but the whole show. The costumes of Gatsby, like the music, has a taste of modern edge. The reason? Catherine Martin collaborated with Miuccia Prada!

   The colors as I mentioned before are brilliant, and also the use of accessories and make-up; it's almost like all the 1920's themed shoots Vogue as ever done have exploded in mansion. And I loved it. The amount of time and effort to creating, producing and clothing that many extras must have been colossal. Not to mention hair and make-up as well...and there were no half-assed jobs. I look for that a lot in period piece films, especially during large party or ball scenes. Gatsby's costume and make-up department went all out, didn't miss a fingernail flawless. I wish beyond wish I could get a Polaroid of each extra in full blow costume and hair because there were soo many and they were all soo good I want to see each one in detail. 

  Look how cute! I want to married to an overly theatric (and actually quite attractive) director and make costumes for his lavish films!

The continuity in the Production Design for The Great Gatsby is incredible and I really do hope it's enough to gain it an Academy Award for Costume and Production Design...Or a nomination at least!

The Ensemble

Everyone (with the exception of Tobey Maguire) did how I expected them to do! Quite brilliantly. 

  Leo is, of course, spot on. He brings not only the pomp to Gatsby, but also the humanity that is so desperately important to his character. For those saying he's going to get an Oscar nom...sorry I don't foresee that happening. If it didn't get one for THE BEST SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE of the year in Django, I highly doubt he'll be recognized for Gatsby. Trust me, I want Leo to win an Oscar probably more than most, but it won't be with this role. 

  Carrey Mulligan...good, solid. She doesn't make Daisy as much of a ditz as Mia Farrow did in the 1974 production, which is such a relief, but she doesn't make her over likable either. Which is also good. We are NOT suppose to LIKE Daisy. I see all this "Channel you're inner Daisy" online and I just keep thinking NO! She is the rotted core of the corrupted, decomposing apple that is the 1920's Jazz Age. So no, you do not want to be like Daisy....just saying...I'd rather be like Jordan...she's not much better, but I always connected with her in the book. 

Super sassy, somewhat detached and a little bit sneaky

  Joel Edgerton where do you hide? I mean really, I love you in pretty much everthing (WARRIOR!) then you hide away and reappear to my delight a year later! So odd...Edgerton is physical and chose the perfect disposition for the character. He is exactly how I envisioned him in the book. 

Secret brothers. Jason Clake & Joel Edgerton

Then we have discount Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke who is ALSO almost always brilliant. You and Joel Edgerton need to stop doing films together (Zero Dark Thirty) I always get you two confused! 

But on a seriously, everyone in this film was EXACTLY how I envisioned them in the book. Even Tobey Maguire character. When I heard Maguire was cast as leading man Nick Caraway I thought 'NOOOOOO!' Because, well solely because of Spiderman. I didn't want Spiderman as the most important character in the film! Thankfully, as he did in Seabiscuit, Tobey surprised me! Character was spot on. There was an innocence but also enough of a devil in him to go along with the party, but make it believable. In the end I really enjoyed his performance. 

Final Thoughts 

  For once, I'm have to arduously disagree with many critics on their harsh treatment of The Great Gatsby. This film is a treat for the senses and an experience that really must be enjoyed in a large theater in 3D Trust me old sport, it'll be well worth your money. Baz Luhrmann returns to the theatrically arousing style of film making that made him such a great success. He uses the source material expertly and blends the magic of the old world with the technology of the new. I hope to soon see The Great Gatsby a second time and relish in it's splendor and innovation. They say it's a film that only young audiences will enjoy? Good. Because maybe, just maybe that love for the movie will spark a love for the original novel and the more young people reading classic literature the better. I see nothing wrong with a film that has a wider appeal to the younger audiences, especially if it's one like The Great Gatsby.