In the Mouth of Madness (1995)

The Movie: We open up in an insane asylum where John Trent (Sam Neil, who you’ll probably recognize from Jurassic Park) is brought in kicking and screaming. Quite literally, unfortunately for one guard. A short time afterward he is visited by Dr. Wrenn (prolific actor David Warner, of the Omen and Cast a Deadly Spell), an agent of an unidentified organization. At Dr. Wrenn’s questioning, Trent tells his story.

John Trent was a freelance insurance investigator whose last case was given to him by the publishing company Arcane. Director Jackson Harlow (the infamous Charlton Heston) has lost his best author, the extremely popular horror author Sutter Cane (Jurgen Prochnow). Cane has disappeared, along with half of his soon to be released novel In the Mouth of Madness. As this represents an unimaginable amount of money for Arcane, Harlow wants Jackson to find either the book or the author and bring it back.

Unfortunately, there’s something not right about Cane and his work. His novels have this tendency to affect some people and cause them to become irrational, paranoid or even violent. Just before Trent heads over to Arcane to take the case, he is attacked by a man with an ax (Conrad Bergschneider), who he later finds out was Cane’s agent! Then Trent finds a potential lead to where Cane might have gone, and is teamed up with Linda Stiles (Julie Carmen, of Fright Night 2), the editor who handles Cane’s work, to go out and find him.

The town they wind up at, Hobbes End, only exists in Cane’s books. Not long after they arrive, all sorts of other things start to happen, things that also should only happen in Cane’s books. Gradually Trent is forced to realize that what he has long believed to be Reality has changed. Cane has become God, Trent is a character in his latest novel, and he and said novel are going to bring about the end of humanity.

The Review:

“Reality is not what it used to be.”

It was probably inevitable that I would be drawn to the horror genre, and to this movie in particular. There are two very important facts about the horror genre I have been able to nail down over the past few years. The first is that all horror stories center around a single theme; lack of control. Whether the horror in question comes from something as mundane as some psycho trying to poke you with something sharp (most giallo, any slasher flick you care to name), or from some or all of what you consider to be the immutable laws of Reality packing their bags and leaving you to your lonesome (Ringu, Messiah of Evil, far-Right politics), the core of the story is always the same; the characters are placed in a situation where they have little or no power, and the plot revolves around how they try to gain it back.

The second fact is that horror is a very personal genre. Just like humor, the purpose of horror is to provoke an emotional reaction in you; and what produces that reaction in one person doesn’t necessarily affect another in the same way. As an example, spiders don’t bother me all that much, like they do some people. However, whenever a movie shows people sticking themselves with or getting stuck by needles, or the amputation of body parts, I shudder no matter what the context or how many times I’ve already seen it.

For these two reasons, the “Reality takes an extended vacation” brand of horror movies are among those that affect me the most. I have been dealing with ausperger’s my entire life, even though I was only diagnosed about halfway through college. For me, ausperger’s largely manifests as a near inability to read people, and therefore a tendency to miss social cues. Most days I find myself in a world of games, rituals, shibboleths (look it up), and other required practices that at worst are destructive and at best really don’t make sense. I identify with this kind of story because it’s what I deal with in everyday life. Quite frankly, I have little, if any, belief in “Reality” because nearly all of what everybody tries to pass off to me as Reality makes no sense whatsoever.

In the Mouth of Madness has gotten very mixed reviews. Roger Ebert and the majority of the other mainstream reviewers agree that the movie starts good, but stops making sense once the heroes head for Hobbes End. I am of the opinion that these reviewers miss the point entirely. Most of the horror in this movie comes from the very fact that John Trent’s situation is absurd and impossible. The quote I begin this review with (as spoken by one of the extras, and one of my all-time favorite quotes) sums up this movie quite nicely. In the Mouth of Madness is about the question of what Reality is, and what happens when your perception of it is suddenly upended.

John Trent serves as our point of view character, and Sam Neil plays it perfectly. In a sense, he actually plays two parts. The first, throughout the main body of the film, is kind of a hard-boiled investigator. He’s good at what he does, and knows it. He’s also incredibly cynical, and convinced that he knows how things work. Most of the movie follows this Trent as he gradually faces the truth, and tries to come to terms with the fact that things are not happening like they’re supposed to. Even though his constant rationalizing in the face of the obvious does grate a little, I cannot help but feel sympathetic toward him as the world he knew comes crashing down about his ears.

The second John Trent character is the asylum inmate in the wraparound. He is still intelligent, but he’s no longer the ultra-rationalist he once was. Instead he’s rather fatalistic; knowing exactly what’s going on, and that there’s nothing he can do about it. He’s also well aware that he comes across as crazy. Among the first things Trent says to Dr. Wrenn are “You here about my ‘Them?’ Every paranoid schizophrenic has a ‘Them,’ a ‘They,’ an ‘It,’ you want to talk about my ‘Them.’”

Equally good in the other major role is Jurgen Prochnow as Sutter Cane. His Cane is a combination evil mastermind and demented deity; overflowing with confidence. His unflappable confidence is even more grating because it’s entirely warranted; he is God now, after all.

The other parts are, overall, good enough. Julie Carmen is a little wooden at times, but is adequate for the most part. I doubt John Carpenter had this consciously in mind when he made the movie, but I just love the idea of Charlton Heston (as the distributor of Cane’s books) being ignorantly responsible for unleashing apocalyptic evil upon the world. And, while I have only seen her in supporting roles, Frances Bay is always one of the best parts of whatever movie she’s in. Her turn as Mrs. Pickman, the psychotic hotel proprietor, is wonderfully creepy.

As for the movie itself, John Carpenter does a great job in building up the atmosphere of impending doom. He starts out small, but builds up, playing upon our uncertainty as Reality frays until the very end, when it breaks entirely. The last scene is a wonderful breaking down of the Fourth Wall between the movie and the audience, and even with the start of the credits it isn’t quite over. Wait to see what’s written after the part about how no animals were harmed to make the film.

In short, I love this movie. In the Mouth of Madness is one of the most effective horror movies I have come across. If you come in with an open mind, you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Karate Kid (1984)

The Movie: Teenager Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio) unwillingly moves from New Jersey to California with his mother. On the plus side, very early on he meets Ali (Elisabeth Shu), who reciprocates his attraction to her. On the down side, she has a jealous ex, Johnny (William Zabka), who is also the leader of the local junior thug society. Daniel finds himself on Johnny and his gang’s shit list really quick.

Even worse for Daniel, Johnny and his goons turn out to be very apt pupils of the Cobra Kai karate dojo; which is run by John Kreese (Martin Kove), himself very much a vicious bully. Daniel is unable to fight back against these bullies, they outmatch and outnumber him. With them gunning for him, it’s doubtful he’ll even survive the school year.

Fortunately, Daniel has made a friend in Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita), the building’s handyman. Miyagi himself is very skilled at karate, and saves Daniel from the latest and most brutal beating. What’s more, he accompanies Daniel down to Kreese’s dojo to confront him about his students. An agreement is reached that the upcoming karate championship will be used to settle matters.

Miyagi is able and willing to teach Daniel what he needs to know. Unfortunately, Daniel’s insecurities threaten to derail any and all of his future successes. Then there’s the little matter that even if Daniel gets his insecurities under control, Kreese is not a man who believes in fighting fair…

The Review:

Daniel: “Hey, what kind of belt do you have?”
Mr. Miyagi: "Canvas, you like? J.C. Penny for $3.19. In Okinawa belt mean no need rope to hold up pants."

A few weeks back an old high school friend of mine invited me to join her and some of her friends to see the Karate Kid remake. Talk about your depressing experiences. Not the people; I am rather fond of said friend, and everybody I was introduced to was pleasant enough. The movie on the other hand, that depressed me.

About a week or two prior I had bought a copy of the original Karate Kid, so it was fresh in my mind. As a result, I had a constant sense of déjà vu all throughout the remake. Seriously, the majority of the good parts and all of the major plot points were lifted straight from the original; almost entirely word for word. But what really got me wasn’t the blatant plagiarizing, though that was bad enough; it was how obvious it was that the people who put this movie together had no idea what any of what they were ripping off meant.

The Karate Kid is a popular movie, and rightly so. On its surface it doesn’t look like much; just your formulaic coming of age story. A young boy on the cusp of manhood is facing a crisis of identity, and the choice he makes will determine the rest of his life. He finds a mentor who, while seemingly teaching him something unrelated, helps him learn what he needs to know to resolve his crisis. In many ways Karate Kid is very much a product of its time; and it even plays to the vogue for wise, ethnic mentors.

However, that is just on its surface. Not far beneath, this movie has a real and relevant message. True, said message was shaped by the time period the movie was made in, but it is one that is relevant to any time or place. At its core, Karate Kid is a story about the clash of two very different ideologies, which are represented in the persons of Miyagi and Kreese.

John Kreese espouses an ideology that was very common at the time, and unfortunately is all too prevalent today: namely, Might Makes Right. Or, as Miyagi puts it, Kreese thinks with his fist. Kreese believes that being strong is the most important thing, and that those who aren’t strong aren’t worthy of respect. Kreese’s definition of strength is one of self aggrandizement and force. The strongest man is the one who can toot his own horn the most, and who can shout down or roll over everybody else. Mercy, compassion and courtesy of any kind are all signs of weakness.

Miyagi, on the other hand, follows a very different definition of strength. He knows exactly what he is and what he is capable of, and he doesn’t feel any need to show it off. Most people just assume Miyagi is an unimpressive old man, and he’s happy to keep it that way unless more is needed. As can be inferred from the quote above, for all his skill in karate Miyagi has never felt the need to compete. Likewise, compare Kreese’s wall of trophies and awards with the fact that Miyagi keeps his Medal of Valor hidden in a small box.

My second favorite scene in the film demonstrates the differences between the two men. Miyagi has accompanied Daniel down to Kreese’s dojo to confront him about his students. Kreese behaves in the expected ways; he bullies, he blusters, he yells and gets into Miyagi’s personnel space, and otherwise tries to roll over him. Miyagi, meanwhile, refuses to play Kreese’s game. He stands up to him by quietly making it clear that he will have his say. Miyagi doesn’t even raise his voice, but he very obviously doesn’t back down from Kreese.

The thing that really struck me about Miyagi is how little he talks. He dispenses little tidbits of wisdom to Daniel, of course, but he never speechifies like mentors in these movies are expected to. In fact, Miyagi never says a word more than what is absolutely needed. Kreese is the one in this movie who gives long-winded speeches and diatribes; but Miyagi teaches by example whenever possible.

Due to pop culture saturation, almost everyone is familiar with how Miyagi begins Daniel’s training: “wax on, wax off.” Miyagi makes Daniel do chores such as waxing his cars, painting, and sanding his floor. Each one is supposed to be done only with a certain hand movement; up-down when painting the fence for example. And of course, irritating and irrelevant as this all might seem at first; the gestures turn out to be the basis for the fighting style Daniel is being taught.

But there is a bit more to it. More than fighting moves, Miyagi is teaching Daniel humility. First of all, people of Kreese’s ilk would claim that their training puts them above this kind of work; Miyagi is showing Daniel that this isn’t the case. Far more importantly, Miyagi is teaching Daniel the simple, yet essential lesson that there is much to be learned from even the most humble tasks and experiences.

My favorite part of the Karate Kid, and the part that is most revealing about Miyagi and his teaching, is when Daniel finally confronts Miyagi about the tasks he is being put to. A scene that is elegant in its simplicity, Miyagi’s response is to order Daniel to demonstrate the hand gestures. All he says are simple orders; “show me sand’a the floor; no, stand up,” with no more elaboration than that. Then, once Daniel is doing it, he simply demonstrates how the required gestures work as a fighting style, with no more words. His point made, he walks silently back inside. What I love about this scene is the expression on Daniel’s face at the end, one that says very clearly “wow, I think I’m starting to get this.”

The final important character is, of course, our hero, Daniel. Both Macchio and the script do a great job of creating a realistic character. I identify very strongly with Daniel; although I must confess it’s less in the pleasant nostalgic way most people usually mean when they say that and more in the “oh gods, please don’t tell me I used to be like that” way. Daniel is your typical, directionless teenage boy who is plunked down into an unknown and uncertain situation. And it shows.

Through the first half of the movie Daniel follows Kreese’s ideology, although one gets the impression that it’s less out of conscious decision than it is simply because he doesn’t know a better way. He picked up a little bit of Karate in New Jersey, and uses it to try to impress people. When Daniel and Johnny first butt heads, Daniel uses it on him and learns, firsthand, the major flaw in this ideology. As Miyagi points out later; no matter how good you think you are there’s always somebody better.

There’s also the fact that Daniel is extremely insecure. Even when good things happen to him, such as Ali reciprocating his affections, he can’t help questioning it and expecting the worst. He tries the easiest seeming solutions to his problems, such as the suicidally blatant prank on Johnny that nearly gets him killed. And whenever he comes upon a hurdle, whether or not it’s one of his own creation, his reaction is always to lash out and then cut himself off from those around him.

However, Macchio and the script do a good job of making Daniel sympathetic. It’s easy to see where he’s coming from, and he has enough good traits that it’s hard to dislike him entirely. Ultimately you wind up hoping he’ll succeed; even if, at the same time, you want to smack him around yourself and say “now see here you moron!” On a personal note, I think Daniel’s girlfriend is way too good for him (although not in the way her family and most of her friends think so), but I’m glad she doesn’t realize it.

Even though it follows a familiar formula, Karate Kid very much deserves its popularity. The makers of this movie use the well-known elements of the genre to create a story that provides a real message. What’s more, it doesn’t hit you over the head with the moral like so many other of these movies do. This is a movie worth rewatching multiple times.

Messiah of Evil (1973)

The Movie: Arletty (Mariana Hill) travels to the remote seaside town of Pointe Dune. Her father, an artist of some renown, moved out there so that he could be alone to paint. However, his letters have started to become erratic and unbalanced, so she is naturally worried about him.

The people of Pointe Dune are unhelpful, unfriendly, and somewhat creepy. Arletty eventually finds another group of outsiders: the rich degenerate Thom (Michael Greer) and his two “traveling companions;” the sultry former model Laura (Anitra Ford, a model on the game show the Price Is Right as well as starring in Invasion of the Bee Girls and the Big Bird Cage), and the jailbait Tony (Joy Bang). Thom came to Pointe Dune to learn the local legends, and they, too, have been seeking out Arletty’s father.

Unfortunately, emotions start to come to a head as soon as Arletty enters the picture. As Laura puts it “Thom likes to collect things,” and it’s no secret that he wants Arletty as another traveling companion. However, the emotional turmoil is the least of their worries. Piecing together clues from Arletty’s father’s journal and the accounts of the local drunk reveal a really dark legend about the last time the moon turned blood red.

The legend talks about unthinkable depravities, and an evil force that takes people over and turns them into something less than human. Then there is the Dark Stranger, a mysterious former preacher who was with the Donner Party when he discovered faith in another, darker Power. The Dark Stranger was last seen walking into the sea; but he promised to return a century later, to usher Pointe Dune’s curse upon the rest of the world.

The Review: Only about a year or two ago there was a wonderful little store on State Street in Boise. It sold used movies, mostly VHS, along with old videogame systems and games. I loved to go through the movies, where I often found obscure little gems. Probably my greatest discovery there was in one of those huge boxes VHS used to come in, and had the intriguing title Messiah of Evil.

Now, I had never heard anything about this picture before. The title interested me, so I grabbed it. However, I really didn’t know what to expect. To be honest, I was pretty sure that this movie would have a few fascinating, though far underutilized, ideas; and would be, at very best, passable. Which just goes to show that I can be wrong sometimes.

What can I say? Messiah of Evil is a true artistic masterpiece of a horror movie. The people who put it together knew exactly what they were doing and how they were going to do it. Considering that said makers, Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, were the screenwriters for American Graffiti (not to mention that Huyck’s career ended when he wrote and directed Howard the Duck), the craftsmanship and knowhow that went into creating such a creepy and haunting piece is just breathtaking.

The main issue with creating a truly effective horror story, whatever the medium you use, is successfully creating and maintaining that atmosphere of tension. Messiah of Evil is set up specifically, in every detail, to make you uneasy. Lights, camera shots, blocking, mirrors, music, sound, two sets of voice-overs (one from Arletty and one from her father); all are used to amazing effect to make things off-kilter. In fact Pointe Dune, where we spend nearly all of the running time, seems less like an ordinary town and more like a waking nightmare.

One of the most effective settings is Arletty’s father’s house, where a good deal of the movie takes place. In almost every room are murals on the walls; mainly people, although there is one of some escalators that is extremely effective. From the beginning the people in the murals are kind of creepy, but they grow more so as strange events start happening. In many places they play as a kind of silent Greek chorus to what’s going on onscreen. Overall, they make the house, which is also the heroes’ shelter and base of operations, seem oppressive and threatening. I know, were it me using the room Arletty sets up as her bedroom, I’d never get a night’s sleep.

Another thing that caught my attention on my last viewing was the blood. I know, blood is par for the course in a horror movie these days; but what caught me was how sparely it was used. What’s more, the blood was so much more effective than it would have been had it come in rivers. A drop of blood falling from an eye, or a red hand hopelessly reaching for succor, is much more effective than the usual oceans of red stuff that is used.

Finally, the makers of this movie employed a masterful use of one of the oldest and most effective techniques for creating horror; warping the normal and familiar. The two most famous scenes in Messiah of Evil, the ones in the grocery store and movie theater, are extremely effectual because they are taking place somewhere that appears otherwise normal. The theater scene especially catches my imagination. Every time I see it I can’t help but wonder what it would have been like to watch it in an actual movie theater. If nothing else, I probably would have been very suspicious of anybody sitting near me.

The characters are well made and acted. Admittedly, we don’t get to know them very well; we never get even a hint of what Arletty’s life was like pre-Pointe Dune, for example. Still, they come across as real human beings. Unlike most other horror movies, while they do stupid things; it never comes across as moronically suicidal, but how an actual human being would act under the same circumstances. The disconnect that comes from not knowing much about them pre-Pointe Dune actually helps reinforce the sense of a living nightmare.

None of the acting quality goes anywhere below adequate, although Greer comes across as the best of the primary characters. As Thom, Greer does a good job at showing both his bad (Thom is somewhat arrogant, lecherous and decadent) and his good (he really does try to do right by the others when he figures out what’s going on) points. Also, he apparently played the Dark Stranger as well. The Stranger’s face is always hidden by shadow, but he does bear a strong resemblance. There are all sorts of rumors about a cut scene showing that Thom and the Dark Stranger are actually the same being, or at least linked in some way.

I don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. I have no problem believing it to be so, however. Thom’s ultimate fate, and what comes immediately afterward, could argue for the affirmative. Whatever link there is between the two characters, if any, is left undisclosed; but it does add yet another layer of nightmarish ambiguity.

Probably the best of the cast are the extras who play the creepy townspeople. The most visible is Bennie Robinson, a black (as in African descended) albino who does a really disturbing performance with both his lines and his simple presence. However, I was also taken by the owner of the gallery Arletty visits at the very beginning of the movie. She’s a blind old woman who first feels Arletty’s face (“like a spider” Arletty’s voiceover describes the experience) and then snaps for her assistant. She then taps out Morse code on his hand, which he translates for Arletty. It is a very brief scene, but I still find it effectively off.

In conclusion, I will repeat what I said at the start of this review; Messiah of Evil is a true artistic masterpiece of a horror movie. It is one long waking nightmare with a decent cast, put together by people who knew exactly what they were doing. If you like horror; and I mean real horror, not the torture porn, bloody cartoons or condescendingly self-referential crap that passes for horror movies these days; you cannot miss this one.

Compare and Contrast: Bedazzled (1967 & 2000)

The Movie (1967): Stanley Moon (Dudley Moore) is a cook at a fast food place. Nervous, dissatisfied with his lot in life and somewhat lacking in social skills; Stanley is deeply in love with his co-worker, Margaret Spencer (Eleanor Bron). Of course, he is too scared to make conversation, and his attempt to ask her out goes badly.

A disastrous and humiliating suicide attempt is where he meets Satan, aka. George Spiggott (Peter Cook). The Devil offers Stanley a chance to get everything he’s ever wanted; seven wishes, whatever he asks for, in exchange for his soul. Of course, this being the Devil, Stanley’s wishes always turn out the exact opposite of what he’s after. With each failed wish, Stanley desperately attempts to outwit George; but the Devil and his servants, the Seven Deadly Sins, are always a few steps ahead…

The Movie (2000): Elliot Richards (Brendan Fraser) is unable to relate to people, though he desperately wants to. He tries to fit in and make friends, but he has trouble reading social cues and tends to try too hard. As a result; all his co-workers loath him and give him a hard time and he is unable to approach Alison Gardner (Frances O’Connor), the woman of his dreams. In short, Elliot is lonely and miserable.

Then one night in a bar, Elliot meets the Devil (Elizabeth Hurley). The Devil offers him a way to solve all of his problems and win Alison; in exchange for his soul she will give him seven wishes. But as the old saying goes: “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it;” and what you get might not be what you truly wanted in the first place…

Compare and Contrast: And now for something completely different, as Monty Python used to say. For this review I am going to try an idea I got from some other web sites; I will compare and contrast the movie Bedazzled and its remake. This was probably inevitable, as the majority of Hollywood’s works these days are remakes. This is an experiment, so I’m not sure how well it’s going to go. Feedback on this would be most welcome. A small warning, there will be some spoilers in this review, probably a few major ones. One more note is that I will make references to “God” as written. This isn’t a slight of anyone’s beliefs, but a concession to my own; as I tend to lean toward the polytheist end of things. No offense is meant to anyone; though I’m sure there are those who will take it just the same.

My parents have long been fans of the original Bedazzled. In fact, one of my oldest memories is of watching part of it with them on television. However, it never came out on video until the remake, so it wasn’t until late high school/early college that I got to see it. While Bedazzled is very much a product of its times, and I hesitate to call it a classic; it is definitely a very fun, well made movie. It’s obviously the result of intelligent people with a rather warped and cynical sense of humor; my kind of art.

As for the remake, it’s almost as good. I really shouldn’t have to be surprised at this; but in this age of remakes I have started to become burned out on the things. After seeing the remake of Karate Kid (which, gods help me, I may cover one day), which steals all of the best parts and major plot points of a good movie with no clue whatsoever of why they were so effective; it’s refreshing to watch a competent remake. The 2000 version of Bedazzled does follow the same basic plot structure; it even borrows a few major plot points from and makes a few obvious winks and nods to the original. However, the completed work is very much its own movie.

Probably the first major point of departure of the two movies is the general tone of the humor. The original Bedazzled is British humor; dry, acerbic and understated even as more outré events happen. Much of the comedy is based on witty lines, word-play and innuendos. The remake, being Hollywood, is much more blatant and outrageous. For an example, a comparison between the two movies’ handling of one the few wishes they both featured should suffice.

In the original, Stanley’s second wish is to be a multimillionaire and married to Margaret; who he wants to be very physical and affectionate. In true Faustian fashion, Margaret is very physical and affectionate with everyone but Stanley. Most of the humor comes from Stanley trying to keep his cool while Margaret is visibly cuckolding him in front of everyone. George, Stanley’s friend and business associate in this wish, makes all sorts of subtle innuendos about the situation which Stanley desperately tries to ignore or pass off. It finally ends when George betrays Stanley with Margaret and Stanley decides it is just too much. There is also the small element that Stanley gets his wealth from arms deals, although it’s only presented as a minor detail.

In the remake, Elliot’s first wish is to be rich, powerful and married to Alison. The situation with his wife is similar; she hates her husband and is very obviously having an affair with one of his underlings. However, most of the humor comes from Elliot’s revelation about where his wealth and power come from; he’s a Colombian drug lord. Elliot’s cuckolding and moral uncertainty about his business causes one of his minions to rebel against him, and the resulting explosive (literally) shootout prompts Elliot to cancel his wish.

The heroes of the respective movies have some slight variation on each other. Stanley Moon is kind of a nebbish wallflower; he can’t relate to other people and is too afraid to try. Elliot Richards, on the other hand, has the opposite problem. He does try, but he works so hard at being what he thinks other people want him to be that he overcompensates. The differences fit into the general spirit of the two films; in the original Stanley is pretty much the helpless everyman who is constantly stepped on by the impartial forces that rule his world. Elliot, on the other hand, can’t or won’t understand what he needs to do to have control of his life.

Peter Cook’s George Spiggot, aka Satan; puts some interesting spins on the character of the Devil. For one thing, he pretty much personifies the definition of “frienemy.” All throughout the movie he alternates between being friendly and sympathetic to Stanley on one hand, nasty and insulting on the other, switching between the two at a whim. He constantly tries, successfully, to trip Stanley up on his wishes. Every so often he offers a gesture of seeming kindness and generosity, but there is always an ulterior motive.

George appears in all of Stanley’s wishes as well. When he does, he is almost always the spoiler element. In the wish I went over above, for example, George is the friend who commits the final betrayal of Stanley with his wife. In another one, where Stanley wishes to be a famous pop star, George is the upcoming rival who steals the spotlight from him. They only times when this isn’t the case is when either the wish itself is stacked against Stanley, or Stanley is obviously going to screw himself over and needs no outside help to do it.

A final, interesting twist to George’s character is what he does between Stanley’s wishes. Whenever Stanley cancels a wish, he spends the time tagging along with George as he does his job. What’s interesting is that George rarely does anything blatantly evil or destructive. Instead, he does things like scratching records and tearing the last pages out of mystery novels before selling them, training a pigeon to poop on a man’s hat, or calling wrong numbers to people who are in the tub. His actions are definitely petty, mean-spirited and irritating, but they can’t really be called evil.

Elizabeth Hurley’s Devil is very different. For one thing she’s female, which lends a sexual vibe to her and her actions (I don’t understand why female evil tends to be linked to female sexuality in the popular mindset, but there you are). Also, her between-wish actions tend to be more blatantly destructive; things like causing car accidents and giving candy to hospital patients instead of their pills. However, she’s not quite as nasty toward Elliot as George is to Stanley. In fact, when she tells him she likes and cares about him, it’s very easy to believe her even though she is trying to trip him up.

Another interesting difference is the Devil’s influence in Elliot’s wishes. She appears in a few of them, but always in the background. For example, in Elliot’s wish to be an NBA star, we catch a glimpse of her leading his team’s cheerleaders. However, she never directly affects the wish herself. It’s always either the wish, or it’s Elliot himself, or some combination of the two that is responsible for it failing.

My final contrast between the films, how the contract is resolved and how “God” is depicted, are what ultimately define the movies’ tone and viewpoint. In the original, George tells Stanley early on that he has a bet with “God” about who can get a certain number of souls first. He’s almost there, and if he wins he gets back into Heaven.

Later on, Stanley’s is stuck in his last disastrous wish and catches George just as he’s about to leave for Heaven. On a whim, George decides that returning Stanley’s soul would make an impressive magnanimous gesture. Unfortunately for him, “God” decides that George’s motives are suspect and doesn’t let him back in after all. Just before the credits roll we have George shouting at the sky, threatening to screw up the world so much “God” Himself will be ashamed. His only response is “God’s” evil laughter.

Stanley ends the movie back where he started at the beginning. All he has to show for his trials are several lifetimes of experience; and the knowledge that he has to get what he wants himself, with no supernatural help. What he will do with this knowledge, or whether it will even be of use to him at all, is left hanging. Bedazzled leaves us with a grim cosmology, one where we are insignificant pawns in a game between formidable but indifferent forces, and where we have little power to change things for ourselves.

In the remake, Elliot, with one wish to go and realizing that he’s screwed, attempts to get out of the contract and winds up in jail for the night. He finds himself sharing a cell with a man who tells him exactly what he needs to hear; he can’t sell his soul, it’s within his power to change his life, and that if he tries he will get to where he needs to be. Elliot tells the Devil he doesn’t want his last wish. She tries to scare him into it with a vision of Hell and Elliot, deciding he’s screwed anyway, wishes for Alison to have a happy life. When he comes to, the Devil tells him that there is a loophole in the contract that voids it if he does anything truly selfless.

Elliot’s experiences gives him the strength to not let his co-workers walk over him and to ask Alison out. It turns out she’s taken, but he gets a new neighbor, Nicole, who’s her exact duplicate. At the end of the movie, it’s obvious that things are going very well between the two of them.

The remake’s cosmology is very different from the original. In this one, human actions and choices are what’s really important; the Devil tells Elliot as much at the end. Likewise, while there are powers trying to trip us up (i.e. the Devil), there are other ones who are trying to help us. We are left in no doubt as to the identity of Elliot’s cellmate; one of our last glimpses is of him and the Devil playing chess in the park. Even the Devil isn’t too bad, and what she can do to us is limited by the choices we make for ourselves.

In ending, I would say that the original Bedazzled, from a technical and artistic standpoint, is the better movie. On a personnel note, it’s also the one that fits my world view. However, I actually like the remake better. This is because the remake’s point of view is the one I want to believe in. Both are very much products of their times (especially the original), but both are also very much their own movies and worth seeing.

Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers (1988)

The Movie: Jack Chandler (long time B-movie regular Jay Richardson) is a private dick (i.e. detective, and yes, there are plenty of jokes about that) in L.A. who is in search of missing runaway Samantha Kelso (the Scream Queen Linnea Quigley). A check in with the police department reveals that they are having problems of their own; somebody is going around hacking up people with a chainsaw. Unfortunately for Jack, the two cases are connected.

A mysterious figure known only as the Master (Gunnar Hansen, the original Leatherface of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and his right-hand woman, Mercedes (lovely and prolific scream queen Michelle Baur) lead a cult of psychotic, chainsaw-worshipping prostitutes. Samantha has gotten herself involved with these crazies; and those who get in their way tend not to come out of the situation in one piece….


The Review:

"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."
-Jack Chandler

Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers had me from the pre-credits introduction; a disclaimer about not using chainsaws when nude and about to engage in sex, and a police interrogation that starts to go terribly wrong (for the police) just before the credits roll. It’s impossible not to love a movie that begins that way. Sadly, it kind of drops the anchor at the climax, but I still have a lot of fun with this one.

Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers is a very low-budget comedy spoof on noir with naked women and some horror movie elements thrown in. It is clear from the very beginning that this movie is just meant to be fun, and that nobody involved is taking it seriously. The one true gore part mainly consists of Michelle Baur holding a chainsaw that, despite the sound effects, is obviously not on. She laughs evilly and waves it around while somebody just off camera throws red paint and blatantly plastic body parts at her. This alternates with shots of her victim, who tries to writhe convincingly and keep his limbs off camera at the same time while that same off-camera individual throws more red paint on him. It isn’t a high-quality affair, and it isn’t meant to be.

The cast, overall, does a good job with their parts. For the most part they deliver their lines well, and it’s clear they are enjoying themselves. The only exception is Gunnar Hansen. He really does not display any screen presence and he delivers his lines with very little, if any, emotion. On a personnel note, something about his appearance and speech makes me think of an acquaintance of mine. Not that said acquaintance has a cult of psychotic, chainsaw-wielding hookers; but considering his standing in the local gaming community he probably could if he really wanted to. There’s no significance to this, it’s just one of those weird similarities you occasionally find in disparate individuals.

My only real complaint about this movie is the ceremony at the climax. The ceremony, and Quigley’s preceding Virgin Dance of the Double chainsaws, is a major letdown. The ceremony itself just drags. As for the Dance; admittedly the idea of Linnea Quigley wearing just a thong and paint dancing with a pair of chainsaws is wonderful. Unfortunately, it fails in practice. The problem is that chainsaws, or at least the ones used in this movie are large, heavy things that most individuals would have a lot of difficulty whipping around one-handed; and Quigley is no bruiser, to put it mildly. While Quigley can dance, as proven earlier in the movie, and in other movies; it's pretty obvious that most of her focus is, by necessity, keeping the two chainsaws in the air.  The end result comes across less "sexy" than "awkward". Fortunately, the following chainsaw duel does make up for it a little. It’s still the weakest point in an otherwise fun movie.

What Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers has to recommend it are as follows: naked women, a garbanzo premise, some truly great lines (such as the quote at the beginning of this review, which is one of Jack’s voiceovers); and a lot of fun, if ridiculous and juvenile, humor. This is not a movie to watch if you are easily offended. However, if you are in the mood for some twisted, brainless fun, it’s great.

Cool World (1992)

The Movie: Frank Harris (Brad Pitt, you should know who he is) returns home from World War 2 to his loving mother (Janni Brenn). Unfortunately, when taking her for a ride on his new motorcycle, they run headfirst into some drunk drivers and Frank’s mom dies in front of him. His day gets even more complicated when an experiment in the dimension next door performed by Doctor Vincent Whiskers (voice of Maurice LaMarche) kidnaps Frank from our dimension. Frank finds himself in a world populated entirely by cartoon characters, and he Dr. Whiskers walk off discussing the matter.

Forty-something years later (contemporary to the when the movie was made); Frank is a police detective who tries to keep order in the Cool World, the official name for the cartoon dimension. The main point of this is to keep “noids” (flesh and blood humans, who apparently pass through while dreaming) from having sex with “doodles” (the cartoon inhabitants), because it somehow causes tears in the fabrics of reality. He is dedicated to his job, but this is at a personal sacrifice because the only thing that makes him happy is his doodle girlfriend, Lonette (voice of Candi Milo); and their inability to consummate their relationship is an endless source of frustration for both.

But Frank finds himself with bigger problems. Local femme fatale Holli Would (Kim Basinger) is determined to escape into the “Real World” at any cost. So far this hasn’t been a real problem, but ex-con cartoonist Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) is just getting out of jail. While incarcerated, Deebs wrote a best-selling comic book on Cool World. Convinced that it is his creation, he is being drawn deeper and deeper in and giving Holli just the sucker she needs to fulfill her plans. Plans that could destroy both worlds….

The Review: Far more frustrating and appalling than even the worst straight out bad movie is the one that obviously could have, should have, been great; but falls far short of its potential. Ralph Bakshi, who directed and wrote the original screenplay, intended something very different. He had in mind an animated horror movie, something much darker. Unfortunately, the studio secretly rewrote the screenplay at the last minute, and the result was a mess where there probably should have been a masterpiece. There are still some traces of the original vision here and there, but it came out as something very different.

The best part about the movie is the Cool World itself. What we get looks like nothing less than a hybrid of the archetypal Naked City we see in noir combined with Dante’s Inferno; if Hell had been designed with the Loony Toons in mind. Nightmarish characters lurk in dark alleys, objects such as anvils and pianos randomly fall from the sky, doors and buildings have minds of their own. Also, I could swear that I saw Woody Woodpecker in one of the crowd scenes; as well as busts of Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck on some of the delightfully twisted buildings that make up the setting.

Brad Pitt did a good job as Detective Harris. No big surprise; Pitt tends to be good when he’s given something significant to work with, and Frank Harris is the most developed character in this movie. He’s actually convincing and sympathetic.

Even when Frank came off as gruff and unfriendly, which he did when he first dealt with Deebs, I found myself on his side. Here is a man who has worked very hard for the gods only know how long (time seems to run very differently in the Cool World) to keep things together. And he’s no hypocrite, he knows exactly what’s at stake; but that means serious personnel sacrifice. Now, along comes this bitch who wants to bring it all down; along with this idiot who’s willing to let her use him to do it. I’d be cranky too. Frank does get rewarded at the end, and is probably the only main character whose reward isn’t very mixed. He’s also probably the only one who deserves it.

Byrne, as Deebs, does what he can; but he isn’t given much to work with. There are some tantalizing hints of what Jack Deebs was intended to be, or could have been. For example, he was in jail for killing his wife and her lover after finding them together. That suggests a much different man than the one in front of us. Aside from that one intriguing hint, the Jack Deebs in this movie is nothing but a passive and willing puppet for Holli to manipulate. Though he, too, gets “rewarded” at the end of the movie; it left me with the feeling that this was a reward he would tire of really quickly.

Holli Would is a mixed bag. I think she is wonderful as long as she remains an animation. However, she is much less so once she becomes human. This isn’t Basinger’s fault; Holli is supposed to represent the ultimate feminine desire. Basinger’s not bad looking, but there’s no way that she, or any other flesh and blood actress for that matter, could possibly match up to the sexy toon. It was a major mistake on the part of the scriptwriter to bring Holli into the Real World.

And there lies my major gripe with this movie. The Cool World is the best part of it, and yet the script short changes it. Some of it is due to the constraints of a PG-13 rating. To keep that rating, the script cannot show the true extent of the horrors and depravities of the setting. It can hint, but it cannot show, and this really cuts into the atmosphere.

The worst part, though, is that the movie spends too much time away from its wonderful setting. We catch a few tantalizing glimpses, but we never really get to know it. As a result, the major plot points never make much sense. How, exactly, does sex between a noid and a doodle disrupt the barrier between the two worlds? Why are noids able to travel here in their dreams? Though I think Frank Harris ultimately deserved what he got at the end, there was no real explanation for how he got it; Cool World just pulled it out of its ass as a convenient deus ex machina.

As I said earlier, there were a few hints of what Cool World was originally intended to be. There is definitely a good movie hiding in the mess that is the end result. Bakshi, if you’re reading this, please, try to get a new movie made of your original vision. Adult animation is more accepted these days, so you might get a better chance. I really hate to see a good idea get wasted, particularly in an age when any original idea at all is a rarity. Unfortunately, thus far that’s exactly what Cool World is; a good idea that got wasted.

Salo (1975)

The Movie: 1944, in the fascist controlled northern Italian state of Salo, four fascist libertines; the Duke (Paolo Bonacelli), the Bishop (Giorgio Cataldi), the Magistrate (Umberto Paolo Quintavalle) and the President (Aldo Valletti); kidnap sixteen physically perfect teenage specimens (eight boys and eight girls). They take them to a secluded villa along with guards, servants, and four elderly prostitutes. There, with the prostitutes telling stories to get them in the mood; they slake their unholy desires on the young innocents.

The Review: As everyone who knows me, along with those who have read this blog, has undoubtedly figured out by now; my cinematic tastes tend to run to movies miles outside the mainstream. Time and again I hear the inevitable question from other people: why? Why am I into B-movies? Horror? Sexploitation? Bizarre films that defy any real attempt to describe them? Why do I feel compelled to leave the beaten path; to employ a metaphor, and seek out movies that the majority of people would avoid like the plague?

I am not too bothered by this question, because it is a good one. Indeed, it is one that I frequently ask myself. The answer I have come up with is simply this; the beaten path has very little to offer me. Oh, I do watch mainstream Hollywood flicks; they even provide something I find worthwhile every so often. But I find the majority of them to be stale, formulaic and predictable. With the very rare exception, if you plunk me down in front of any typical Hollywood film, I can tell you exactly what will happen. If it’s a horror movie, I can tell you who will die and probably even how. If it’s a romantic comedy, I can tell you who will end up with who at the end. If it’s a drama, I will probably be able to tell you, very early on and in detail, what dramatic devices they will use and how they will use them.

I approach the cinematic world with the mindset of an explorer seeking parts unknown. Sure, the well traveled routes have their wonders to offer; but they rarely vary, and one grows jaded to them quickly. However, by seeking the less traveled parts, the ones off the map, I am able to see marvels that few people see and that are all the more wonderful for that fact. There’s a sense of discovery with coming upon something that most people aren’t even aware of; and wouldn’t bother to seek out even if they were. If I didn’t have the urge to seek out something different, I never would have discovered such delights as the truly warped humor of Paul Bartel; or the dreamy, surrealistic visions of Jean Rollin; or the twisted joy of such works as Re-animator or Night of the Creeps. But I have had the opportunity to discover them, and my life is all the richer for it.

However, there is a very good reason why most people choose to stick to the beaten path. Namely, it is safe. There is the rare danger or unpleasant surprise; but for the most part, if you stay on the beaten path, you will know what you will encounter and how to deal with it if you do. When you head into parts unknown, you don’t have that safety net. You’re never sure what you will encounter.

Sometimes this is good; the pleasant surprises are all the more pleasant for being surprises. On the other hand, the hurdles are all the more daunting for being unfamiliar. When you find a bad movie, they are bad in ways you are unprepared to handle. Many people are amazed at how I can watch universally derided movies like Showgirls or Cool as Ice: the Vanilla Ice Movie and say, “eh, it wasn’t good, but it was nowhere near as bad as it could have been.” With the titles I regularly seek out and watch, I know very well of what I speak.

But the greatest danger you face when leaving the beaten path of the cinematic world, is that it is entirely possible to stumble across something that will truly scar you. With no safety net, there are no assurances of what you will or will not encounter. Salo is one of those, fortunately, exceedingly rare films that will wound you; maybe permanently, if you have any amount of human decency in you. It is about as close and accurate a look at real-life human evil as you can get while still staying in the realm of the fictional; and true evil is something that marks everybody who has even the most tangential contact with it.

Salo is based off of the 120 Days of Sodom, an unfinished novel by the infamous Marquis de Sade. I am much more familiar with the man’s history than his work, but Donatien de Sade represented the cumulative nadir of the French aristocracy just prior to the revolution. He was vain, narcissistic, arrogant, selfish and spoiled. He was also very intelligent, and a talented writer. During his long incarcerations in prison (and outside of them, too), de Sade wrote many plays and works of fiction. Through these writings he developed a personnel philosophy that is still known today and is the source of the word he lent his name to; sadism.

Sade was a strict materialist who believed that human beings are basically cruel and selfish. The trappings of society such as morality, law, religion and virtue; only serve to cripple people and repress what they truly are. Sade argued for the endless pursuit of pleasure, any desired pleasure, without fear of punishment or consequences. Through his works he examined morality and vice, their outcomes, and their hypocrisies.

Salo is a meditation on having that kind of absolute power over another person; being able to do whatever you want to them without fear of consequences. Most importantly, Salo looks at the inevitable outcome. As history has proved time and again, absolute power is probably the most corrupting and destructive force anyone can encounter.

For obvious reasons, Salo is a very controversial movie; and has been in the 45 years since it came out. There are many people who dismiss it as sleazy trash, and nothing more. Admittedly, that’s easy to do. You probably read my synopsis and came to that conclusion yourself. But true works of sleaze never invite controversy, particularly for as long as Salo has. There’s some outrage, sure; there might even be some defenders. However, sleaze is quickly forgotten. So what makes Salo different? Two things.

First of all, sleaze is always brainless. The idea isn’t to make you think; in fact, thinking is a detriment to your enjoyment of it. It is obvious that a lot of thought and effort went into the making of Salo. The costumes, the settings, the blocking; all is very carefully and competently done. The director knew exactly what he wanted to convey, and how he was going to convey it; and it shows.

The second reason is that sleaze is intended for enjoyment. Oftentimes rather sickening, unhealthy enjoyment it’s true; but the whole principle behind sleaze is that somebody finds it pleasurable. Director Pier Paolo Pasolini went out of his way to ensure that nobody could find Salo at all pleasant. (For those of you who want to write me and say that that’s not true, you find it enjoyable; let me save you time by giving you my response in advance: you scare me, get help.)

There is plentiful nudity on display, including some actresses I would take great pleasure in ogling were this any other movie; but the circumstances strip any and every amount of eroticism out of their nudity. Likewise, there’s some really graphic sex. However, with maybe one or two exceptions, sex in this movie is portrayed as painful, humiliating and/or the excuse for truly horrible punishments inflicted on the participants. You do not watch these sex scenes for fun; in fact, they’re enough to put you off sex.

Watching this movie as an artist and a former psych student, I got the impression of an artist using his art to purge his inner demons. Salo is, simply, about evil and its consequences. Our four villains are very human, I could expect to encounter them walking down the street, though I’m praying I never will. They have quirks (one’s always telling really bad jokes for example). Their methods confirm to how all the worst atrocities progressed; they start out fairly small. Gradually though, as the villains truly begin to appreciate the leeway they have with what they can get away with, their actions become more and more vile. I can remember one scene where I was gagging and praying for it to be over. It passed, but when the next round of atrocities came about, I was praying for them to return to it.

But even then, the villains never become the cackling, mustache twirling stereotypes we think of when we think of villains. They remain disconcertingly human. In fact, we are made to participate in the final atrocity; where they take it in turns sitting at a window with binoculars and watch while the others torture their prisoners to death. Our view of the proceedings is entirely through said binoculars.

The prisoners themselves become complicit in their captivity. As time passes they become more and more passive, laughing at the villains’ awful jokes and obeying their orders without question. They even start informing on each other, in the hopes that they will be spared the worst.

Then there’s the final scene, which I think encapsulates the movie perfectly: two guards; young, handsome, pleasant seeming young men; dancing and asking about each others’ families in the same room where their boss is watching atrocities through binoculars. It is surreal, but it is also a very accurate portrayal of people in this kind of situation.

I am a little torn about what I want to say to end this review. On the one hand, Salo is a good movie. It is very well done, and it is about as accurate a portrayal of true human evil as I have ever seen in a movie. I can even say truthfully, much to my surprise, that I do not regret having seen it.

On the other hand, Salo is not at all a pleasant movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. It is a true ordeal to sit through, and it doesn’t do anything to improve one’s view of humanity. Of course, there will be a few of you who will read this and, despite my warnings, you will feel the need to experience it for yourself. I will not try to dissuade you, I understand what you are feeling all too well. However, I will leave this one last caution. Salo is not a movie you see on a whim. If you do decide to seek it out, tread carefully for here truly be monsters.