Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

The Movie: Hollywood, 1947; cartoon characters, called toons, live in a nearby place called Toontown and act out cartoons in the same way human actors act out movies. Cartoon producer R. K. Maroon (Alan Tilvern, in his last role) is having problems with one of his top celebrities. Roger Rabbit (voice of Charles Fleischer) keeps flubbing his part, and Maroon is convinced that it’s because he is too distracted by his wife, Jessica (voice of Kathleen Turner). Maroon hires detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins, who was also Smee in Hook and Mario in the Super Mario Brothers live action movie) to obtain some incriminating pictures of Jessica so he can prove to Roger she’s bad news.

Eddie has a history. He and his brother used to be the top cops in Toontown, renowned for their competence and nobility. Unfortunately, all that changed when one malicious toon killed Eddie’s brother by dropping a piano on him. Now, Eddie refuses to go near Toontown and has as little to do with toons as he is able. Unfortunately, due to his depression and alcoholism he is down on his luck, so he has no choice but to take Maroon’s money. He gets some compromising pictures of Jessica with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), the prankster-like owner of the Acme Corporation, and Roger is suitably upset. It all goes downhill when Eddie finds out the next day that someone murdered Acme by dropping a safe on his head, and all clues seem to point to Roger as the culprit.

Eddie starts to have his doubts when he meets Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd, probably best known for his role in the Back to the Future movies), the sadistic lawman determined to bring Roger to justice. Doom has done the impossible, he has discovered the recipe for a substance called the Dip, which can destroy toons. Combined with Doom’s sadistic weasel henchmen, Roger looks screwed.

Eddie discovers that Acme’s will was missing, and that the will was the most probable motive for his murder. Against his will, Eddie is dragged right into the middle of it when Roger himself comes to his office and claims that he was framed. Pursued by Doom and his weasels, Eddie must find the will, and soon, or it will be the end not only of Roger, but of all of Toontown as well.

The Review:

“Is that a rabbit in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
-Dolores

Like many other people, I saw Who Framed Roger Rabbit at a fairly young age. Then I didn’t see it again until college; my school had a few regular events that showed interesting movies. Admittedly, at the time it didn’t make a big impression on me. However, my mind was mostly focused toward other issues; specifically the issues that led to me obtaining the coveted title of Nine-Fingered Menace. In the past two or three weeks Who Framed Roger Rabbit came up on my Netflix queue and I sat down to watch it again. I was surprised to find one burning question lodged in my mind for nearly the entire movie: “how the hell did I manage to miss all of this?”

Who Framed Roger Rabbit works on many levels due to the simple fact that it is one of those movies where multiple levels of stuff are happening. While I haven’t really been able to test it, I’m sure you could go through the movie many times and each time notice something you didn’t catch on an earlier screening. There are numerous cartoon characters, both well known and obscure, from Disney, Warner Brothers and probably a few other sources as well, constantly carrying out their business in the background and foreground. The same goes with the live extras. Even some of the major characters can sometimes be glimpsed in the background while the one or two of the others are doing something unrelated in the fore.

And there are plenty of other details as well. There are odd, risqué little messages on men’s room walls (“for a good time call Allyson Wonderland”) and in other obscure locations; such as the oven Roger gets roasted in during the cartoon he films at the very beginning of the movie being of the “HotterNelle” brand. There are also lots of little cultural references. Roger Rabbit is at its core a noir, and it somehow manages to shoehorn in almost every trope of the genre.

Finally, there is a practice, as old as animation itself, where the animators slip in risqué details that you won’t notice because they go by too fast. It’s not done so much anymore, because with DVDs you can play the scenes frame by frame and catch them easily. I have only heard of one or two of these details in this movie, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more. I can attest that the rumors involving a scene of Jessica Rabbit are true.

That’s it for the small details; the big ones are just as impressive. One thing that caught my notice was the relationship between Roger and Jessica Rabbit. Jessica is the personification of what 99.99999999+% of us heterosexual males fantasize about, but know in our heart of hearts we’re never going to get. Roger, on the other hand, is the exact opposite not only of Jessica, but of the kind of man we’d expect to see with someone like Jessica. He’s short, he’s goofy, he’s spastic, obnoxious and socially awkward. In other words, he’s us to some extent.

And yet, the really odd thing is that while everything about Jessica screams femme fatale, she is obsessively in love with only one man, Roger. She has no interest in any other man; she doesn’t even pretend to seduce Eddy to get him to help like her character type would in any other film; she just asks for his help and drags him along. It’s clear that none of the human characters understand what she sees in Roger, but it’s also clear that it’s not just Jessica. Early on Betty Boop makes an appearance, and when identifying Roger’s wife for Eddie she expresses some envy that it was Jessica who landed Roger. Obviously this is wish fulfillment; but for us dreamers at least, it gives us a small ray of hope.

For my next analysis, I must offer a minor spoiler alert, because I’m going to have to reveal the villain’s plan. It’s not a major spoiler; even if you haven’t seen this movie, if you possess even the smallest fraction of the intelligence I’m convinced my readers have, you will already have connected most of the dots by the big reveal. Still, if haven’t seen this movie and spoilers still bother you, skip ahead HERE.

Still there? Okay, what I find most notable about Doom’s ultimate evil plan is that it is based on a historical event. Basically, he wants to wipe out Toontown in order to build a freeway; and among other things he has bought the streetcar line so that he can dismantle it. Beginning in the 1930s, General Motors and some of the other major automobile companies started buying out streetcars and other public transportation in America’s cities in order to dismantle them, so that people would depend on their products instead. It wasn’t 100% successful, but it’s why these kinds of systems are so rare these days.

The world Doom describes that he is trying to bring forth; one of isolation, cheap, disposable commercialism and instant not-so gratifying gratification; is of course our present day society. What I find so perversely ironic about this coming from the villain is that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a Disney flick, and Walt Disney himself was one of the main architects of our commercialist society. I don’t know if the screenwriter was conscious of it or not, but there is definitely some subversion here.

End Spoiler Alert

One final thing I should bring up is that despite the ad campaign around it, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is not a kids’ movie. My parents wouldn’t let me or my siblings watch it for years, and I’m now in a position to see why. First of all, there are a lot of adult elements here, most of which would go right over the heads of younger viewers. There are also a few rather disturbing elements as well. I’m rather jaded about what I see in my movies at this point, but the scene where Doom first uses the Dip still bothers me.

Overall, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a fun, well made movie. It has a great cast, great special effects, and a good storyline. It works well as both a noir and a rather perverse little comedy. If you haven’t seen it in a while, definitely worth a rewatch. Just be sure to keep your eyes open for the not so obvious details.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006)

The Movie: Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) is your average nice guy living in New York City. His problem is that he’s not great with women. He’s desperately in love with his best friend and coworker Hannah (Anna Faris, of May and the Scary Movie franchise). However, she’s dating an underwear model, so he figures he doesn’t have a chance. Worse, he has a knack for getting involved with crazy women; and his last relationship has him scared to date six months later.

Matt’s problems really begin when his friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson, no relationship it seems) convinces him to approach a woman on the subway. Despite himself, Matt does wind up impressing her, and he and Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman of Kill Bill and the Adventures of Baron Munchausen) start dating. Matt has some misgivings at first, thinking she seems like some of the other crazy women he’s been involved with, but for a while it doesn’t go too badly.

Things start to change after a run in with super villain Professor Bedlam (comedian Eddie Izzard), and Matt finds out who his girlfriend really is. He’s been dating G-Girl, the local superhero. Worse, Matt’s initial impression about her was correct; Jenny is insecure, jealous, manipulative and unstable.

When Matt has enough of it and breaks up with her, things get really bad. Jenny is determined to make him pay for breaking her heart. You think psycho exes are bad? Imagine a psycho ex who is capable of putting your car into orbit, or hurling a shark through your window…

The Review:

“Wow, no woman’s ever done that to me; and I am a dick.”
-Vaughn

I would like to begin by wishing my readers (all four or five of you) a happy Valentines’ Day. In recognition of the holiday, and to show my views on it, I have two reviews; this one, and Humanoids from the Deep.

Admittedly, My Super Ex-Girlfriend is not a great movie. It’s not a bad movie (those who say it is have no idea how bad movies can get), but it definitely could have been better. However, I have an affection for it nonetheless. I can cite three reasons for this. The first one is probably the circumstances surrounding the first time I watched it. I had wanted to see it for a while, and one night I rented it along with the movie May. After watching both movies I suddenly realized two things; it was about two weeks since I had broken up with my ex, and I had just rented and watched two movies featuring a break-up that went catastrophically wrong. I cannot help but wonder if it truly was a coincidence, or if there was something going on in my subconscious. Admittedly, both movies also star Anna Faris; but since I was unaware of it at the time I’m pretty sure that was a coincidence.

My second reason for liking this movie, and my reason for wanting to see it ever since I first saw the previews, is its handling of Jenny aka G-Girl. I have long had a problem with the character of Superman, he’s too perfect. Not only is he practically unstoppable physically, he is completely incorruptible psychologically and morally. Aside from his allergy to a rare mineral, he pretty much has no flaws whatsoever.

With the exception of her gender, G-Girl is Superman. Physically, she has all of his powers and abilities. However, psychologically she is Superman as I am sure he would really turn out. While having those kinds of powers would seem fun, they would also serve to separate their recipient from the rest of humanity. Even before Jenny got her powers she was socially awkward, and they have further served to isolate her. As a result, she is insecure, having very little ability to actually socialize with the people around her. Each mistake she makes in that regard reinforces her sense of isolation and insecurity in a vicious cycle, making her unstable.

Kudos are due to Uma Thurman and the makers of this movie for G-Girl. She is convincingly dangerous and scary, but at the same time she is sympathetic as well. I have actually known some people like Jenny in my life, sometimes even felt like her myself. The only difference being G-Girl is a lot worse on account of her being able to throw a car when she has a temper tantrum.

The third reason I like this movie despite its flaws is my identification with Matt Saunders. I, myself, have long had a knack for attracting crazy women; at least, crazier than usual. Yes, I did just say women are crazy. Men are equally crazy and, while I have yet to meet any hermaphrodites, I would bet anything they are no less psychologically messed up. To be human (and, I’m beginning to suspect, sentient) is to be insane, screwed up and damaged to some extent. It’s just that for some reason I seem to attract the women who are more blatantly so than usual.

Admittedly, Luke Wilson’s performance as Matt isn’t particularly memorable, either as really good or really bad. However, he plays the part adequately. The role itself, though, is very convincing. Matt is a more or less decent guy who is just trying to do the right thing, but who keeps winding up with the wrong type of woman. This is the hook that keeps me engaged in the film despite its other flaws; I know all too well what it’s like when the ones you want always seem just out of reach, while the ones who want you always seem hazardous to your health.

So those are the good points, what are the bad? Well, a lot of the attempts at humor fall flat. The movie provides not one, but two sources of odious comedy relief. There’s Matt’s uptight boss, Carla (Wanda Sykes), who is convinced that he’s some kind of sex fiend and constantly on the lookout for a reason to bust him. Then there’s Vaughn who is a sex fiend, and an asshole to boot. Both actors obviously have some talent, but their parts really don’t provide them much to work with and they tend to come off as painfully unfunny.

As a whole the movie is well shot and blocked. The special effects are good, and they are actually directed by the story instead of the other way around. I also love the animation during the ending credits, although I make a point of muting it because the song played is so insipid.

As a whole, I would say that My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a decent movie. It’s far from great, but it is fun and it handles well several issues I can relate to. What can I say? I like it, whether or not anyone else does.

Humanoids From the Deep (1980)

The Movie: A small fishing town is having problems; namely, it’s getting harder and harder to find any fish. This is impacting the local economy and therefore bad all around. There is some hope, the corporation Canco wants to set up a cannery in town; and in return promises needed jobs as well as a refurbishing of the fish population. Of course, this is met enthusiastically by most of the town, especially by the fisherman Hank Slattery (Vic Morrow from 1990 Bronx Warriors).

But one of the citizens is completely opposed: Johnny Eagle (Anthony Penya), our local Indian/Native American. Johnny is convinced that the cannery will only make things worse, and he’s determined to prevent it from being built. This puts him at odds with Hank, who is determined to prevent Johnny from spoiling the business deal.

And there have been strange happenings around as of late to ramp up Hank’s hatred and paranoia. Happenings such as a fishing boat mysteriously blowing up with all on board, or all of the dogs near the water (except, ironically, Johnny’s) getting mysteriously killed one night. Hank is convinced that Johnny is doing this in order to sabotage the cannery deal, and he and his redneck thugs are resolute that he learns a lesson.

Fortunately, Johnny has some friends in Jim Hill (Doug McClure) and his brother, Tommy (Breck Costin). Jim is in favor of the cannery, but he’s also an intelligent and reasonable man. He’s seen enough of the events himself to determine that a lone saboteur would be unlikely to accomplish it all. Besides, Johnny would rather fight Canco through the legal system.

With all the political games going on, nobody notices the monstrous fish-mutants that are really behind the problems. Not only are they killing dogs and attacking boats, they also attack some couples who happen to be on the beach by themselves. The men are killed gruesomely, of course, but the women are in for a worse fate.

The answers lie with Doctor Susan Drake (Ann Turkel), the Canco scientist who has come with its representatives. Remember how Canco promised to refurbish the fish population? Well their solution was a genetic treatment Doctor Drake developed. Unfortunately, some of the treated salmon were accidently released. It turns out that they were eaten by coelacanths (consistently mispronounced ko-al-i-canth instead of see-la-canth throughout the movie), and the genetic treatment kick started their evolution. The result is the creatures that have been causing the trouble, and a subconscious desire to evolve further has invested them with the desire to mate with human women. Unfortunately, by the time our heroes discover it the town’s annual Salmon Festival is underway, and it provides the fish men with plenty of walking targets…

The Review:

In most ways, Humanoids from the Deep is an exploitation film pure and simple. There’s the impossible science and the caricatures, the extensive gore and nudity, the rubber suited monsters at the center of the mess. In fact, Humanoids somehow manages to shoehorn in almost every B-movie trope of the previous few decades.

At the same time, there are a lot of little touches that help it rise a little above the status of just another piece of sleazy trash. A large part of it was probably due to how it was put together. The original director Roger Corman hired was Barbara Peeter, who put together a serious, non-exploitative take on the script. However, after it was filmed Corman determined that it lacked what the intended audience desired; namely, gratuitous gore and female nudity. He brought in director James Sbardellati, later to direct Deathstalker, to shoot the more exploitation friendly elements.

The end result is not a schizophrenic mess, as one might expect, but a competent blending of the two approaches. On the serious side, the characters aren’t all one-dimensional cutouts. There is actually some fairly thoughtful interaction between them. Our main hero, Jim, is actually for the cannery, but he is not going to allow opposing opinions to be beaten down. What’s more, he is willing to keep an open enough mind about the subject that he immediately takes notice when something isn’t right.

The conflict between Johnny and Hank is also a little bit more nuanced than it might be. Hank is the spitting image of a lot of public figures I have born witness to. Likewise, having lived in small towns a large portion of my life, I can say that this movie nails small-town politics near perfectly. However, while Hank is obviously an antagonist and an asshole, he’s not irredeemable. He and Johnny wind up working together to save some kids in the climactic attack on the Salmon Festival. What’s more, in another thoughtful touch Johnny winds up saving Hank’s life, and Hank is clearly conflicted over being at the mercy of the man who he’s been persecuting, not to mention Johnny’s willingness to do the right thing regardless.

On the exploitation side of things; there’s some decent stuff too. As another reviewer points out, it’s doubtful that it’s a coincidence that a single movie can incorporate all of the B-movie tropes it does and still maintain a brisk 82-minute running time. Not only that, but there are a lot of fun little touches throughout. As an example, one of my favorites is two of the victims; a couple in a tent on the beach. The guy is using a ventriloquist dummy to seduce his girlfriend, I kid you not, and succeeding. Not only that, but the dummy is funny as all hell.

Humanoids from the Deep has been facing charges of misogyny since it came out. I can see where one would get that impression, but I don’t believe this is the case. If nothing else, it features some rather strong, competent female characters. Jim’s wife Carol (Cindy Weintraub) certainly does an extremely good job at fighting off the fishmen attacking her and her toddler son. Or, in another one of my favorite parts there is Sandy, aka Miss Salmon (Linda Shayne, who later went on to direct, herself). On the one hand she initially seems like just another beauty queen bimbo. Then there’s the obvious jiggle factor when one of the humanoids chases her; she’s only wearing a skimpy bikini, and she gets her top torn off. However, when she is cornered, her reaction is to pick up a rock and apply it to her attacker’s skull. And she wins, too.

I only have two things about this movie that bother me. First is the rapes. On the one hand, the guys in the rubber suits make it look just ridiculous enough that it’s not as unpleasant as it could be; but the scenes are still a bit graphic and rape always bothers me. The other is the killing of the dogs. Admittedly, it’s not at all graphic, but I really don’t like it when animals get killed in these movies. Even (maybe I should say especially) when I’m actively hoping for all of the human characters to meet gruesome deaths, I really don’t like it when animals get killed, whether or not it actually shows it. What’s that? Misanthropic? Moi? Well, maybe just a little.

In the end, I would say that Humanoids from the Deep is a well made, if sleazy, little B-movie with just enough brains to raise it above being merely that. If nothing else it’s good, cheap sleazy fun; and sometimes that’s all we’re after.

Night of the Creeps (1986)

The Movie: We start out aboard an alien spaceship, where one baby-like alien is being chased by two others. When the pursuers are locked out of the corridor their prey escaped to, one emphasizes to the other that the experiment in the capsule he was carrying must not get off the ship. Unfortunately, he takes it to the airlock and it does just that.

The experiment winds up on a certain blue planet that should be very familiar to all of us. Specifically, it lands just outside Corman College in 1959. There, a sorority girl is about to go on her first date with a guy who she hopes will be her new boyfriend. Unfortunately, the evening goes even worse than you could normally expect a date to go. First, the beat cop who interrupts the couple on lovers’ lane to warn them about the escaped ax-wielding psycho turns out to be her recently dumped ex. Then when they see something fall out of the sky in the woods, the boyfriend goes to investigate, leaving her in the car by the road. Loverboy is attacked by slug things that come out of the alien capsule. The girl, meanwhile, meets the escaped psycho and gets the ax.

Twenty-seven years later, on the same campus, we meet best friends Chris (Jason Lively) and J.C. (Steve Marshall). Chris sees and immediately falls in love with the beautiful Cynthia Cronenberg (Jill Whitlow), but is too terrified to approach her. Fortunately for him, J.C. has no such reservations. J.C. is a paraplegic chronic smart-ass, and he’s well aware he’s never going to get laid anytime soon; so he figures he should help his best friend in that regard instead.

Chris gets it into his head that the only way Cynthia will give him the time of day is if he pledges a fraternity. Unfortunately, frat president Brad (Allan Kayser), who unbeknownst to the boys is also Cynthia’s boyfriend, has no intention of pledging them. Still, since they’re kind enough to present themselves for some humiliation, he feels he should give it to them. They are told to steal a corpse from the school’s medical center and leave it on the doorstep of a rival fraternity.

Searching for a corpse, the boys stumble across a top-secret cryogenics facility. They take the body out of the device, but unfortunately it turns out to be Loverboy from the beginning of the movie. When he moves, they freak out and run like hell, so they miss him killing the grad student who attends the facility.

The cop called to the scene is Ray Cameron (the prolific Tom Atkins) who, by a really nasty coincidence, turns out to be the jilted ex of the girl we saw axed in the first scene, and the first person to find her remains. Loverboy, meanwhile, turns up outside of Cynthia’s window, so she gets to not only see the corpse move, but also to see the head explode in a shower of slugs. Having dumped Brad for being an asshole (considering the kind of woman she turns out to be, you have to wonder what took her so long), she turns to Chris and J.C. for support. It looks like Chris might have that shot at the woman of his dreams after all.

Of course, it’s not that easy. The alien slugs infest all the bodies they can get, animating them and in turn causing them to infest the living. Cameron has some demons from his past that literally aren’t going to stay buried. Finally, the whole mess cumulates when a bus crash results in a horde of slug-infested zombie frat-boys….

The Review:

“I personally would rather have my brains invaded by creatures from outer space than pledge a fraternity.”
-J.C.

As I mentioned in my review of Re-animator, creating a successful horror comedy presents a very difficult balance. If you lean too far in either direction you either wind up with a bad, tasteless (and not in the desirable way) attempt at comedy or a weak, half-assed horror movie. Also, if you’re not careful about how you balance the humor and horror elements, they can cancel each other out. Either way, the outcome is rarely entertaining.

However, every so often somebody is able to strike that precarious balance. Night of the Creeps is one of those rare attempts at a horror comedy that actually manages to get it right. For the most part, it is just a plain fun movie to watch. The humor, while often twisted, mostly works; only occasionally aging badly or falling flat. On the other hand, while Night of the Creeps mainly operates in the spirit of good, though usually perverse, fun; it does have teeth and doesn’t hesitate to use them.

On the fun side of the equation, Night of the Creeps has all the beloved staples we expect from our B-movies. The very beginning has some goofy alien costumes, and the rest of the film contains obviously low budget, yet still good and effective, special effects. We have likeable heroes, villains we love to hate, and gratuitous boob shots.

The humor can be hit or miss, but for the most part it works. J.C. and Detective Cameron get all the best lines, and they deliver them well. Where it misses is in the culture references, such as how almost everyone is named after B or horror movie directors.

As for the horror side, when Night of the Creeps gets dark it really gets dark. Things happen to characters we are led to like and care about; even when other movies of this sort would lead us to believe that some of said characters are off limits. Also, the character of Detective Cameron is one of the really bleak points. On the one hand, Atkins plays the character well, making him believable as an exasperating but likeable curmudgeon. He also provides a large portion of the humor. On the other hand, as the movie goes on we get to see how damaged an individual Cameron really is, and the situation with the alien slugs really isn’t helping him with that any.

One final issue of import is the ending. Night of the Creeps actually has two endings; the one that the moviemakers originally intended, and the theatrical ending that the studio made them use instead. For the longest time the theatrical ending was the only one I was able to see, as it was the one on the VHS tapes that were available to me. However, with the recent release on DVD (I snapped up my special edition copy as soon as I could get my hands on it), we are provided with a cut that has the original ending; although the theatrical one is apparently provided as a special feature.

I won’t spoil the endings for you, but I will offer this critique. The theatrical ending is your typical horror movie kicker ending that pops up out of nowhere. It’s not bad, but it’s not great and is something of a disappointment compared to the rest of the film. The original fits in much better, and is also much more ambivalent. You can probably guess which one I prefer.

So in conclusion, Night of the Creeps is a fun, well made little classic of a B horror movie. The acting and writing are good and the special effects, while obviously low budget, are equally well done. It’s also one of the few attempts at a horror comedy I’ve seen that gets it right; the humor mostly works and it’s fun, but the movie also has some rather nasty teeth. Definitely a must see for the B-horror aficionado.

Nomads (1986)

The Movie: Dr. Eileen Flax (Lesley-Anne Down) has just moved to Los Angeles from Boston; and she already faces a life-changing case at the hospital where she works. Late one night a bloody, raving derelict (Pierce Brosnan of Lawnmower Man and the late ‘90s James Bond movies) is brought into ER. He loudly rants nonstop in French, so nobody is able to communicate with or make any sense of him. However, when Flax steps in to check on him; he lunges at her, whispers something in her ear and dies.

Dr. Flax starts having spells of disorientation, sometimes passing out. During these spells she finds herself reliving the man’s last memories. It turns out that the raving derelict was Professor Jean Charles Pommier, a respected professor of anthropology who has spent the last ten years living with various primitive groups. He has only been in L.A. a week, where he and his wife, Nikki (Anna Maria Monticelli; and might I add, a redhead who speaks French! Sigh!), have moved to rejoin civilization. Unfortunately, the prospect of a normal, pedestrian life is already making him bored and restless. But that’s nothing compared to what he’s about to discover.

There is a gang of toughs that vandalizes the couple’s new house nightly. Pommier is overcome with curiosity about them, especially after he discovers a makeshift shrine in the garage. Following and observing them, he discovers that they lead a primitive, nomadic existence; not much different from the people he’s been studying for the last decade. But there is much more.

The Inuit have a legend about the Einwetok (pronounced in-oo-wad), evil nomadic spirits who regularly take the form of humans. They are attracted to sites of tragedy and violence, and they bring madness and destruction to those unfortunate enough to cross their path. Well, it turns out that the Pommiers’ new house is the site of a gruesome murder. Worse, now that the spirits are aware of Pommier, he finds himself hounded; and slowly drawn into another world entirely….

The Review:

“You just look too closely. Most people are luckier; they don’t know that a certain percentage of what they see is not there.”

Nomads is an interesting little horror movie. Admittedly, it is flawed and only a partial success. However, as I have mentioned several times in my reviews of Jean Rollin’s movies, even a partial success can be pretty damn good; sometimes even head and shoulders above typical mainstream genre fare.

With its horror elements, Nomads hits it perfectly. It is a very atmospheric film; one that does a very good job at conveying the sensation of a world that isn’t our own, but that at the same time isn’t as separate from our world as we would like it to be. The horror is mostly hinted at, with just enough glimpses and concrete information to convey the gravity of the threat, but with just enough left to the imagination to make you wonder.

The nomads themselves are very well done. Considering that they include pop stars of the time such as Adam Ant and Josie Cotton, this is especially impressive. The standout for me is Mary Woronov, long my all-time favorite actress (although Brigitte Lahaie is a very close second); who conveys the impression that we’re not looking at a woman, but some inhuman predator in a woman costume. The nomads don’t make any noise (except for one who occasionally lets off an evil chuckle), but through body language and facial expressions they are pretty convincing as individuals who aren’t human; all appearances aside.

Another standout cast member is the ever wonderful Francis Bay, who appears as a creepy blind nun with an undisclosed connection to the evil spirits. Brosnan himself does a good job, more or less convincing in his role. The rest of the cast does adequately at absolute worst.

The final major positive element about this movie that I find worth mentioning is the soundtrack. Bill Conti and Ted Nugent put together three rock songs that are played throughout the film, and Nugent even played guitar for them. Now, I’ve never cared much for Ted Nugent, either as a musician or a human being; but I must admit that the man has talent. The songs really convey the atmosphere of the nomad’s lifestyle and habitat. I just wish it was available on an album.

So with all of these good points, what is the problem with Nomads? I would say that it is one thing; Doctor Eileen Flax. Nothing wrong with Ms. Down’s performance, I think she does well; it’s just that the character herself really doesn’t fit into the movie. Nomads is Pommier’s story, it’s about his decent into this other world and his own damnation. And as it’s about him, we really don’t need Flax.

The connection between the two characters is somewhat spurious, there’s no real in-movie explanation for how he transfers his memories to her. It’s pretty obvious that her entire inclusion in the movie is to provide a set-up for the twist at the end. Admittedly, the twist works. It is somewhat shocking, yet it does flow organically from hints provided earlier in the movie. However, there are plenty ways it could have been done without having to add an unneeded character and her back-story to the film.

So in conclusion, Nomads is a decent, though flawed, little horror movie. It handles its horror through hints and leaving much to the imagination, and does it well. The one downside is that the wraparound plot is unneeded and detracts from the rest of the film. Still, as a whole, Nomads does a great job of conveying the impression of something that lies just beyond the everyday world we take for granted.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

The Movie: Louis Mazzini D'Ascoyne (Dennis Price), tenth Duke of Chelfont, sits in his cell on the night before his execution for murder. To pass the time, and to make sure posterity knows the truth, he writes his memoirs of what brought him here.

Louis tells us how his mother (Audrey Fildes) was a member of the noble D’Ascoyne family; but how he grew up poor because she eloped with an Italian opera singer (Dennis Price again). However, his mother brought him up on his noble birth and the histories of his family. This planted a dangerous ambition in him.

After his mother’s untimely demise, Louis decided he was going to reclaim his birthright and become the duke. Unfortunately, there were eight other people (all played wonderfully by the late Alec Guinness, although to his dismay most people only remember him as Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars) in his way. Louis ambitiously decided to remedy this.

But as the bodies piled up and Louis place in the world began to improve, some complications crept in. First there was his growing love for Edith D’Ascoyne (Valerie Hobson), the young widow of one of his first victims. Even more potentially disastrous is Sibella (Joan Greenwood, who also did the voice for the villainess in Barbarella), Louis’ mistress and former childhood friend, who is married to his childhood rival Lionel Holland (John Penrose). Sibella has her own designs on Louis once she starts to realize what he’s really worth.

While Louis did obtain the dukedom, the unseen complications wound up getting him the murder charge as well. Now he awaits his execution, wondering if he might possibly obtain a last-minute reprieve…

The Review:

“Now, in those days I never had any trouble with the Sixth Commandment”

There is one, and only one, good thing that has ever come out of censorship. It is simply this; the artist is forced to be much more clever, creative and innovative than he would normally be without that impediment. This little fact was driven home for me when I was on the school newspaper in high school. My school was run by morons who constantly created and enforced extremely stupid and destructive policies. Unfortunately, we on the newspaper were not allowed to say anything critical of the school or the Powers That Be, even (actually “especially” would be the more appropriate word) when it was the gods’ honest truth. However my journalism teacher, probably second only to my parents as the worst influence on my life, didn’t care for them either and she provided me with the answer. “Nathan,” she would constantly tell me, “we can’t say that. But if you phrase it this way….”

Now, I have always had a passion for language and words; word games, innuendos, entendres, double meanings, and that most demonized of arts, the pun. As a result, writing for the paper became a game for me. I had a lot of fun seeing how critical I could be of the morons in power in ways that they couldn’t prevent. I had numerous successes and failures, but it was an educational experience that proved extremely useful when I entered the world outside of high school.

In the past few years I have seen a lot more of the older movies; specifically, ones that were made in the age of the abomination known as the Hayes Code. Admittedly, on their surface such movies seem quaint and tame; especially when compared to what you can see in films that came after the Code was ended. Also, it is true that the Code hamstrung quite a few movies that would otherwise have been good. However, there were quite a few more that were nowhere near as tame as they might appear to a modern audience. If you look and listen closely, you’ll notice that they’re playing the exact same game I played with my high school newspaper; and once you recognize that, you find some truly twisted and irreverent stuff.

At the time, Britain didn’t have the same kind of formalized code for what you could put into movies. However, the British government censored its country’s films just as harshly; and both countries kept the others’ censorship statutes in mind so they could sell their movies to each other. I am of the opinion that British humor is very adept at this kind of censor tweaking. The British have a way of saying one thing in a casual deadpan manner while conveying something else entirely that American humor has never quite gotten right.

Kind Hearts and Coronets is a British black comedy that perfectly exemplifies this method of humor. This movie is full of all sorts of twisted, irreverent, socially unacceptable behavior and raunchy humor; even by today’s standards. However, it is all played out in a strait faced manner that simultaneously serves to both hide the happenings from the more literal minded and emphasize them even more for those who are paying attention.

Take Louis and Sibella’s affair for example. Now, in those days sex, especially illicit sex such as adultery, was a definite no-no to the censors. The way the movie handles it as a result is pure genius. The most we actually see are a few passionate clinches and the fact that Sibella visits Louis’ apartment unchaperoned, which in the time of the movie’s setting would have been a major scandal. However, listening closely to the dialogue tells you what your eyes don’t. For example, one of my favorite lines is when Louis approaches Lionel at his and Sibella’s wedding and tells him “you’re a lucky man Lionel, take my word for it.” The line is spoken so casually that the more literal minded will probably not think much of it; Lionel certainly doesn’t notice anything. But if you’re paying attention, that seemingly innocuous phrase has worlds of ulterior meaning.

Then there’s how the movie handles Louis and his murders. The character of Louis, himself, is an amazing bit of dramatic sleight of hand. Throughout the entire course of the movie Price is never outwardly anything but reasonable, civil and seemingly decent. At the beginning, it’s very hard not to sympathize with him. The D’Ascoynes did wrong him and his mother, after all. Also, the majority of Louis victims are arrogant, obnoxious and/or self centered. It’s very hard not to cheer when he offs them.

And yet, as the movie goes on, we begin to see what a bastard Louis truly is. He still seems the civil, reasonable man we started out with; but his words and actions tell a very different story. By the end, much as we enjoyed seeing Louis dispose of the D’Ascoynes, we cannot help but feel that his own ambiguous fate is very much deserved.

Overall, Kind Hearts and Coronets is a very well made movie with a very talented cast. However, one actor stands far above all the others; Alec Guinness. Guinness plays eight very different roles throughout the movie; an arrogant young rake, an old and senile clergyman, an earnest and friendly young photography enthusiast, and a gruff and arrogant baron to name a few. What’s more, he nails each of them perfectly. In fact, it can be hard sometimes to believe that they’re all played by the same man.

Most people today remember Guinness as Obi-wan Kenobi from Star Wars, but the truth is he had a very long and distinguished career before he played that role. In fact, by all accounts he really hated that role and refused to acknowledge any mail from Star Wars fans. What’s really impressive is that it seems Guinness regularly played multiple complex roles in a single film. In the original script for Kind Hearts and Coronets he was only supposed to play four characters, but asked if he could do eight instead. The fact that he could do eight different parts as well and convincingly as he did speaks volumes about his talents.

In conclusion, Kind Hearts and Coronets is a wonderful film. Admittedly, on the surface it might seem tame and sedate by today’s standards. If you pay attention, though, you will see that it’s about as twisted and subversive as film as one could come across; it just hides it under a thin veneer of civility. If you’re into subtle, subversive cinema, seek this one out.

My Humble Attempt at a Eulogy for Jean Rollin

On Friday the 17th of December, 2010; I learned that one of my favorite directors, Jean Rollin, passed away two days prior. Presented here is my humble attempt at a suitable eulogy for the great man.

I am very good with words, everybody tells me so. However, I’m not exactly sure how well this eulogy will come out. Truth to tell, I’m still just getting to know Rollin and his work. I first learned about him roughly two years ago. I was searching the internet for oddball movies that I had never seen, and I came across one website. It had a few movies that looked very interesting. As per usual, I missed the name of the director, or even that they were all done by the same man. I finally learned this when I checked the name of the director for one of the movies and then looked him up on Netflix. I found that I had already watched, and enjoyed, nearly all that they had by him. Thus my fascination (if you’ll pardon the pun) began.

I don’t feel I know all that much about Rollin because, due to DVD formatting, there is still much of his work that is unavailable to me. However, what little I have seen has definitely caught my imagination. The most notable thing about him is that he is a true artist with his own unique vision. What’s more, he was a man who was determined to get his vision out to the public, whatever hardships he had to face to do it. Even when he faced bankruptcy, or had to do other projects that he did not wish to do, such as directing hard core pornography, to fund his own visions; Rollin was still dedicated to his work.

One of the things I really like about Rollin’s movies is how un-commercial they are. They are almost nothing like conventional mainstream films. Admittedly, this can make them confusing and somewhat intimidating at first. I tend to think of his films like I would a dream; viewed externally they tend not to make much sense, but taken on their own terms they have their own internal logic. Rollin’s movies show us realms and vistas that we might not actually inhabit, but that we instinctively know exist just out of sight.

Rollin’s films, to borrow a comparison from somebody else, are more akin to poetry than prose. Most, if not all, of them have a sleepy atmosphere about them that gives the impression of either a waking dream or a living nightmare. Sometimes both. He tended to dwell on feelings of loneliness and alienation, but there’s a sense of wonder as well. Whether it’s the need and fragility of human relationships, or the limits of mortality, Rollin employed themes that stay with you after the movie is over. Every Rollin movie I have seen, whether or not I thought it worked, has had the director’s mark very clearly on it. Even if his movie was only a partial success, it was still wonderful for being something so unique.

One thing very noticeable about Rollin’s movies is his focus on women. Females are almost always the protagonists; it is rare that he has male heroes. Admittedly nudity and lesbian scenes are in great supply, but it rarely ever feels truly exploitative. For one thing, the heroines are given definite personality. What’s more, they are usually the strong ones, whoever they might be up against. Even today it’s rare to have movies that center around strong, capable, female protagonists and antagonists. I do think he got a bit carried away with the theme of having his heroines tied up and whipped, but overall I think he handles his female characters with much more respect than most movie makers, past or present.

I cannot begin to fully describe what I get out of Rollin’s movies. Rollin has shown me cinema that is very different from what I was able to imagine before I encountered his work. It is through Rollin I was introduced to such individuals as Joelle Coeur or the Castel Twins; now ranking highly among my fantasy women; or Brigitte Lahaie, who very quickly rose to just below Mary Woronov as my favorite actress. Most of all, he helped me realize that it is still possible to create something truly unique in art. As an artist myself (albeit a different medium), that is a priceless lesson. It is my hope to one day create something that equals a fraction of what he was able to accomplish. Rollin, you will be missed.