This one spiraled so far out of control that its sheer size kept deterring me from putting it up: “Nah, that’s too much work for today. I’ll do it tomorrow.” [Repeat like two dozen times] Frigging Netflix kept pulling stuff from my queue, so I had to keep dropping what I set out to review to add another unplanned film! But now, at last:
Attack the Block (2011), in which hooligans have to become heroes, lest space monsters take over their apartment building…
The Bloody Judge (1970), in which Christopher Lee pretends to take a break from horror by portraying one of the major villains of British history…
Dr. Orloff’s Monster (1964), in which underperforming Frankenstein monsters can still be useful for cleaning up one’s romantic messes…
The Ecstasies of Women (1969), in which a long-lost Herschell Gordon Lewis skin flick turns out to be not remotely worth the wait…
The Empire Strikes Back (1980), in which George Lucas goes to Dagobah to study retcon fu…
Fantomas: In the Shadow of the Guillotine (1913), in which the first cinematic take on the celebrated proto-Krimi antihero turns out to be all anti and no hero…
Juve Against Fantomas (1913), in which the best part is also the worst part, as Fantomas employs a trained python to do his dirty work…
The Murderous Corpse (1913), in which the series takes a much-needed turn for the grisly…
Fantomas Against Fantomas (1914), in which it acquires a sense of humor…
The False Magistrate (1914), in which Fantomas goes out on a curiously realistic note…
Fear City (1984), or as I’ve come to think of it, Abel Ferrara’s M…
Georges Melies Trick Films (1900), in which I disappoint those of you who were hoping I was about to resume my battle against the Witchcraft franchise instead…
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977), which could frankly use a demented Marlon Brando with an inexplicable pet midget…
Prince of Darkness (1987), in which John Carpenter channels both Nigel Kneale and H. P. Lovecraft in ways that are still disappointing after all this time…
Surf Nazis Must Die (1986), in which the Fuehrers of the New Beach tangle with the wrong old lady…
and…
Trader Hornee (1970), a sex comedy for which “limp” is by far the best word.
#1 by RogerBW on September 9, 2015 - 12:41 pm
Quote
I saw the update on the site this morning and have been reading it for most of the day…
The thing that gets me when reading all the Fantomas entries in order is that there’s often no point to his crimes – sure, he’ll steal priceless necklaces and things, but many of his murders seem completely irrelevant to any actual plot. He steals Tom Bob’s reward money even though as Tom Bob he would get it anyway. Why not kill some nobody in the street who’ll never be missed and use his hands as crime-commitin’ gloves? Presumably he just likes baroque plots.
Dr Orloff’s Monster: I think this must be the first occasion I’ve come across in fiction where the trustee wants the trust to be wound up and the money delivered to its rightful beneficiary!
I think the quantum-mechanical stuff in Prince of Darkness may be an attempt to be Lovecraftian: yes, it defines things, but it also emphasises that there are things we cannot know. Certainly when Lovecraft was inspired by modern-to-him science, what he took from it was not “we know more stuff now” but “the things we used to think we knew are proven wrong, and there are no comforting certainties to replace them”
#2 by Richard on September 9, 2015 - 3:10 pm
Quote
I heartily agree with you on “Attack the Block”. When I get around to posting my own review at my blog, you’ll see that I thought of it not as an alien invasion movie, but as a movie about a gang war where one of the gangs happened to be aliens.
Still, a very nice – and very well done – take on an old trope.
#3 by Camassia on September 9, 2015 - 3:39 pm
Quote
I was kind of surprised that Attack the Block didn’t do more box office, especially since it was reviewed so favorably. Of the two people I saw it with, however, one of them (who’s a horror-movie buff) loved it, while the other was like, “Gee, I thought an alien-invasion movie would have more special effects.” I don’t remember the marketing campaign now, but I do think the “alien invasion” label, though technically accurate, may have drawn in the wrong audience and therefore led to bad word-of-mouth.
#4 by El Santo on September 9, 2015 - 6:09 pm
Quote
You mean like people going in expecting flying saucers and death rays and whatnot? I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense.
#5 by ronald on September 10, 2015 - 11:16 am
Quote
>>> The Bloody Judge: “Better” still is the most inexplicable lesbian scene I’ve ever encountered
From a strictly financial perspective, there’s really no such thing as an inexplicable lesbian scene. I’d be surprised to learn that horror films with lesbian scenes don’t tend to earn more money than lesbian-less horror films of the same basic quality. 😉
>>> Ecstasies of Women: To be honest with you, I’ve seen an embarrassingly small number of Herschell Gordon Lewis movies
Anyone who’s watched any H.G. Lewis movies has by definition watched an embarrassing number of them.
>>> Surf Nazis Must Die: Practically everything Troma produces in-house is obnoxious crap
Well, yes, but that’s what they’re STRIVING for, so at least they’ve set reasonable goals for themselves and are achieving them.
>>>Fear City: he’s not at all what you expect from either a mad slasher or a vigilante
Technically speaking, a slasher who avenges a past injustice (usually against the slasher him/herself) that actually constituted a *crime* (hit-and-run driving, for instance, to say nothing of throwing one off of a pier) is by definition a vigilante. If/when there’s another slasher boom, that approach could be handled more directly: Since filmmakers want audiences to at least theoretically *like* the slasher (for merchandising purposes and so on), they could depict him/her killing scum-of-the-earth criminals yet depict the main protagonists (you know, the bright young idiots that we’re expected to root for) as petty, LIKEABLE criminals who are *also* being targeted by the slasher. A clash of anti-heroes. A thought, anyway.
I’m curious as to how you, in particular, would define the differences between a slasher film and a serial killer film (especially one in which the serial killer has superhuman powers). Any thoughts? Thanks for your time.
#6 by KeithA on September 10, 2015 - 12:15 pm
Quote
Excited to read the Fantomas reviews, as I was just myself steeped in his nefarious deeds for the book.
To RogerBW’s point — the way I see it, Fantomas’ addiction isn’t to crime, but to chaos. He couldn’t care less what the crime is or even if it succeeds. The insane amount of planning — from establishing a fake identity complete with people who seem to have known him as that identity for years to buying lavish manors — seem to preclude any hope of the stolen goods ever covering the cost of the production. But as long as people die and things blow up and Fandor has to hide in a laundry hamper, Fantomas is satisfied. He is the personification of the anarchists running wild in the streets of London during the early ’10s. And Louis Feuillade’s handling of the scripting process is similarly anarchic. His disregard for that portion of the film making process is what results in his films being what I call “accidentally surreal.”
And let’s not sell Juve short. His schemes are every bit as loony as Fantomas’. I’ve watched each of these movies probably three or four times in the past year, and I STILL have no idea what Juve expected to accomplish with the suit of spikes, the masque full of Fantomases, or why he thought breaking Fantomas and taking his place was in any way a good plan to catch Fantomas.
As much as I love Fantomas, Feuillade REALLY hits his stride with the next serial, Les Vampires. Sadly, he loses his stride immediately after with the overly melodramatic family-values adventure Judex (which at least features Musidora in a bathing suit).
#7 by JASON FARRELL on September 10, 2015 - 4:34 pm
Quote
In the Fantomas entry in Kim Newmands and Steven Grant’s ANOTHER 100 HORROR’S BEST BOOKS, it is suggested by the author that Juve and Fantomas are one and the same, that the first line of dialogue is Juve merely stating the name Fantomas, and that his new identoty is formed in that moment.
#8 by ronald on September 11, 2015 - 4:06 am
Quote
Try as I might, I just can’t quite grasp the concept of a national literary/film genre where the “heroes” kill innocent people as a matter of course. I understand the appeal of the “anti-hero” who kills criminals that the law can’t touch — I don’t support the concept, but I *understand* it — but what makes a protagonist who’s willing to kill just anyone anything more than, well…a serial killer? American popular culture’s gotten a lot of criticism over the past few years for supposedly “idolizing” serial killers, but it seems like Europe’s been doing that all along…
#9 by El Santo on September 11, 2015 - 9:05 am
Quote
At least in the Feuillade movies, Fantomas is plainly a villain rather than an antihero. That really just changes the terms of your question without answering it, though. Still, it’s worth pointing out that villains have always had their cheering sections; I mean, nobody watches Dracula movies because they’re such big fans of Jonathan Harker.
#10 by JASON FARRELL on September 11, 2015 - 10:37 am
Quote
Talking about character archetypes, man, you got to give Juve mad credit as an early Cop on the Edge
#11 by El Santo on September 11, 2015 - 12:03 pm
Quote
Oh, wow. You’re absolutely right about that– even more so in the books, if I understand the situation correctly. From what I’ve read about those, Juve’s bosses at the Security Service don’t even believe that Fantomas exists!
#12 by ronald on September 11, 2015 - 6:56 pm
Quote
True, but most Dracula films are based on the unspoken principle that it would bad for Dracula to *win*. Not dissimilarly, Fu Manchu always escaped at the end but he also always FAILED. Even Freddy Krueger, despite his unexpected popularity, usually lost.
It’s expected for films to want their merciless killers to be interesting. It’s quite something else to want them to SUCCEED.
Again, it’s the fact that Fantomas (and many others in his genre) don’t limit themselves to killing “bad guys” that makes me puzzle over their status as popular “heroes.” The “kill only bad guys” types at least tap into natural resentment over crimes that go unpunished, but why would you cheer on someone who’d just as soon kill YOU as anyone else? Well, it’s probably just a European thing that a United Statesian like myself just won’t “get.”
#13 by El Santo on September 10, 2015 - 2:04 pm
Quote
Well, sure– but we’re not talking here about the usual “Oh, how terrible it is to be locked in this dungeon! Let us console ourselves by burying our faces in each other’s crotches.” This is lesbian necrophilia (simulated, obviously), performed without provocation of any kind by a character who has previously shown no inclination whatsoever toward such advanced perversion.
#14 by ronald on September 10, 2015 - 3:36 pm
Quote
Perhaps it would make more sense if we knew who the dead prisoner was; always the question of what might have been removed at some point. Or maybe Mary spent her life suppressing lesbian desires and she felt that she had to surrender to them JUST ONCE before she died…
#15 by Anna on September 12, 2015 - 10:44 am
Quote
I loved the TESB review. I still think ‘Empire’ is the peak of Star Wars movies, and even if ‘The Force Awakens’ is as good as I’m hoping, I still don’t see it dethroning TESB.
I really enjoyed your look at the Leigh Brackett draft. One thing I really admire about George Lucas – he kept her name on the finished credits, and informed Larry Kasdan that he would have to share credit with Brackett for the benefit of Brackett’s estate after she passed.
I agree that Lucas was buying his own Kool-Aid during the Prequels, and I’d amplify by stating that the people that could reliably say “Uh, no George”, such as Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas, were long, long gone by the time ‘Phantom Menace’ was in production.
I think the darkness of the ending, the depths added to the characters, and the over-all feel of TESB are what make it the superior ‘Star Wars’ entry. I hadn’t thought of it, how you were saying ‘Empire’ has the similarities to the 70’s-era bleak SF movies.
Well Done, I’ll be back after I read the rest of this roundup. 🙂
~Anna
#16 by Camassia on September 13, 2015 - 5:32 pm
Quote
I really enjoyed the stuff about the Brackett script too, since I hadn’t known any of that (apart from the fact that Vader being Luke’s father wasn’t in the original plan). It was interesting that Brackett figured the Jabba issue should have been settled, because I remember when I read the novelization a few years ago I thought that it *should* have been settled. After all, Leia tells Han in A New Hope that he’ll get his reward money, and TESB is supposed to be a couple years later so surely he’d have had a chance to slip away to tidy up the loose ends at some point. However, I suppose these films always ran on imagery more than logic, and the visit to Jabba’s lair in the next film certainly pays off on that front.
#17 by ronald on September 25, 2015 - 2:38 am
Quote
“fact that Vader being Luke’s father wasn’t in the original plan”
Fun fact: In the very first set of Star Wars trading cards, Leia’s age was given as 20 and Luke’s as 22. So it seems safe to say that Luke and Leia as brother and sister was also a later addition. 😉
#18 by Anna on September 13, 2015 - 5:55 pm
Quote
@Camassia – funny you mentioned the Jabba thing, back in the old Marvel comics Star Wars books, pirates stole the reward from Han in the first storyline after the original adaptation. 🙂 The last regular issue before the TESB adaptation had Han kill a Bounty Hunter, presumable on Ord Mantell.
#19 by Camassia on September 14, 2015 - 2:25 pm
Quote
That makes sense. The Expanded Universe is a great filler of plot holes!
#20 by Jen S 1.0 on September 15, 2015 - 3:18 am
Quote
I too saw Prince of Darkness as a kid, and was bewildered, retaining only the disturbing memory of some of the shots and pronounced reluctance to touch mirrors for a few weeks. And I also rewatched it as an adult and felt somewhat vindicated that it wasn’t just me being thick–it really didn’t make any sense.
Lots of Carpenter films, especially his Lovecraftian-twisted ones, do that for me–I’m intrigued but end up with a dull headache.
#21 by Chris W. on September 16, 2015 - 11:47 am
Quote
I had a private bet with myself that the “Evil in a Can” teaser was Prince of Darkness, glad to see it was. I went back and watched it again last night after reading your review. I was struck by a similarity to Dragonslayer where Pleasance’s character tries to have his religion take the credit for the phyrrhic victory, never even mentioning Catherine at all.
Like Quatermass and the Pit and Lifeforce, I really enjoy films where ancient legends and religions and superstitions have a science-fiction-base to them. Whenever I read reviews on them, they always seem to have a cult following of interest, but also invariably collapse under their own weight of ideas and getting them across to the audience, subsequently tanking in mainstream reviews. It’s disappointing, because its an extremely fun idea to explore. Does anyone else know of any other films of this type that they enjoy and like to share?
#22 by Richard on September 22, 2015 - 2:13 pm
Quote
I finally made it all the way through this batch of reviews, and one thing jumped out at me from the “Trader Hornee” review. The tribe called the “Meshpoka” immediately made me think of the Yiddish word “mispocha”, which means – essentially – “tribe”… So if that’s the sort of humor one can expect in the movie, well…..
#23 by El Santo on September 22, 2015 - 4:35 pm
Quote
Yes, good catch. Friedman talks a bit about that in his commentary track on the Something Weird DVD (which, in the manner of David Friedman commentary tracks is vastly more interesting than the film it accompanies). And it is indeed the sort of humor one can expect overall, dismaying as that is.
#24 by Doug on September 24, 2015 - 9:19 am
Quote
I’ve found Attack the Block rewards multiple viewings–lots of subtlety for a “monster movie”. The scene where Sam walks through Moses’ apartment is a magnificent bit of “show, don’t tell.”
Incidentally, John Boyega (Moses) is a headliner in Star Wars VII–I’m very curious to see his performance, given how good he was in AtB.