The Fog (1980) ***

 

With “Halloween,” John Carpenter established the slasher film as the dominant form of horror for the next decade, inspiring dozens of similar movies about teenagers being systematically slaughtered. Like “Halloween,” these movies follow what became one of the rules of horror films, which is that you get killed if you drink, use drugs, or, especially, have sex. Two years later, though, Carpenter released his next feature film, which wasn't about killing teenagers and didn't follow any of those rules. While others were busy copying “Halloween,” Carpenter was busy moving on to something different.

“The Fog” tells the story of Antonio Bay, a coastal town built on the fortune of a benefactor named Blake, whose ship foundered in a fog and sank in the bay before he could see the town built. Legend has it that Blake and crew will rise from the depths one day to avenge their deaths. As Antonio Bay prepares to celebrate its centennial, a strange fog rolls in from the sea, and you can probably guess what unsavory visitors it brings with it.

The best part of the movie is probably its cast. Carpenter managed to fill Antonio Bay with good-looking women, including Jamie Lee Curtis and Nancy Loomis (both from “Halloween”), Janet Leigh (famous for “Psycho”, and Jamie Lee Curtis's mom), and Adrienne Barbeau (who was Carpenter's wife at the time). Hal Holbrook stars as an alcoholic priest, and the character actor Tom Atkins plays the male lead.

“The Fog” is not one of Carpenter's best, but it's still a pretty decent movie, considered a minor, horror classic in some circles. Despite a budget of only $1.1 million, the movie has a professional look and feel. The story honestly does not make a lot of sense, but Carpenter makes excellent use of the camera and his excellent cast, imbuing the film with more humor and humanity than you have a right to expect from a low-budget, horror flick.

3 stars out of 5

Halloween (1978) **** and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) **

 

I recently watched these 2 seminal horror films, and the contrast between them is remarkable. John Carpenter's “Halloween” has aged quite well, still providing a gut-twisting sense of dread that builds up to sheer horror. Wes Craven's “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” on the other hand, is not nearly as good as I remembered it. 

 

“Halloween” is a pretty straightforward story, without definite supernatural elements. A young boy named Michael Myers murders his sister in the 1960s. Fifteen years later, he escapes from the mental institution and returns to his hometown, where he terrorizes a group of teenagers. The movie works, in part, because it keeps things simple. You mix a homicidal maniac with some attractive teenagers, et voila! It has been the essential recipe for slasher films ever since. For better or for worse, the movie established many of the standard conventions of horror: 1) The killing of anyone who has sex, drinks, or uses drugs. 2) The Final Girl. 3) The killer who seems impossible to kill. That first point, that you die if you have sex, has become such a standard of horror films that it is a running joke, spoofed in movies like “Scream” and “The Cabin in the Woods.” This recurring theme probably says something messed up about our attitudes towards sex, but Carpenter denies that he had any moralistic intentions in writing “Halloween.”

Carpenter made “Halloween” with around $300k, which was ridiculously cheap even in 1978. He used his creative prowess to save money everywhere he could, including composing the score himself. For writing, directing, and scoring the film, Carpenter took a salary of only $10k. This bargain helped secure him creative control with final cut. On the back end, he negotiated himself a bonus of 10% of the profits, which worked out pretty well, as the movie has earned roughly $70 million, placing “Halloween” among the most profitable films ever, based on return on investment.

I think that the director having complete creative control is a big part of why “Halloween” is so great. This is not a horse built by committee. The movie also has a pretty decent cast, despite the low budget. The most notable, of course, is Jamie Lee Curtis, appearing here in her first movie role. She was a relative unknown then, but, as the daughter of Janet Leigh (Psycho), she brought some horror-film cred to the project. Curtis is really quite good in the role. She delivers a lot more personality than is typical for a character whose main job, historically, is to scream. Her female co-stars also deserve some credit. Nancy Kyes (credited as Nancy Loomis) and P.J. Soles lend some cuteness and comic relief to an otherwise intense movie. Because of its creative and financial success, “Halloween” became the template for many, many slasher films that followed.

One of those films is 1984's “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” Written and directed by Wes Craven, the film tells the story of a group of teenagers whose dreams are haunted by a sadistic killer named Freddy Krueger. In dreams, Krueger stalks the teens wearing a glove with knives on the fingertips, and when he kills you in a dream, you die for real! 

 

 

It's a creative concept. With a director of Craven's caliber (He was known for “The Last House on the Left” and “The Hills Have Eyes,” and he went on to create the “Scream” movies.), this should be one of the great horror films. Many critics think it is, but re-watching it now, I was very unimpressed. The film does have its good points, including capturing the twisted logic and geography of dreams, where buildings have rooms and floors that don't exist in real life, and one place seems to transition into another. Craven manages to create a tremendous amount of dread. The characters are safe as long as they stay awake, but after days of sleep deprivation, normal mental processes start to break down. Sleep, and danger, are just seconds away! The movie is diminished, though, by bad acting, dated 80's styles, and lame, soft-focus camera filters. The movie's biggest flaw, however, is its ending. I have an issue with the old, “It was all a dream!” scam that some writers pull on the audience, and Craven uses it here to undermine the entire story. For me to enjoy a movie, there has to be some level on which things that happen in the film matter. A nihilistic ending like the one here just makes me feel like I wasted my time. Nonetheless, the movie was wildly successful, sparking a slew of sequels, including a 2010 remake starring Jackie Earle Haley. Most critics felt the remake was terrible, but the original is widely respected and viewed as a horror classic. I guess I'll have to be in the minority on this one.

Halloween - 4 stars out of 5

A Nightmare on Elm Street - 2 stars out of 5

The Outpost (2020) ****

 

Mark Twain is usually credited with the line, “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Whether Twain said it or not, it's an apt observation. Humanity seems truly resistant to learning lessons from the past. Nowhere is this more apparent than in America's ongoing adventure in Afghanistan, now the longest war in our country's history. Within just a few short years, we are looking at the very real possibility of babies born during the war getting the opportunity to serve in the same war. That's a grim national achievement if I've ever seen one. We've been at this war long enough now that we are ignoring the lessons of our own experience there, let alone the experiences of the Russians and the British before us.

“The Outpost” is the story of one of those experiences, the 2009 Battle of Kamdesh, one of the bloodiest American engagements of the war. I won't give away much more about it, except that the military unit involved became the most decorated of the war (so far). If you are at all up for a violent war movie, then this is must-watch material. The acting is good, with a cast including Scott Eastwood (Clint's son) and Orlando Bloom. The fight scenes are fast-paced and realistic. “The Outpost” depicts real soldiers acting like real people; this movie doesn't manufacture drama.

If I have one criticism, it's that the story is told entirely from the point of view of the American soldiers. We don't get any insight into the motivations of the Taliban fighters or the Afghan villagers, some of whom are one and the same. Truth be told, the Afghans in “The Outpost”come off looking like a bunch of sneaky, lying savages. The Taliban fighters are obviously brave enough, but the Afghan military forces at the base look like cowards. In fairness to the movie, this story is MEANT to be told from a particular point of view. In a way, that's an essential element of this war, the inability of each side to understand the other. Clearly, the Afghans are complex human beings with honor and family and motivations of their own, but the language and culture gap between them and the American soldiers is too wide to bridge. I think that must be one of the worst things about this kind of war, being stationed among people who seem incomprehensible, and being hated by “friend” and foe alike.

If you only watch one movie about the war in Afghanistan, this should be it. “The Outpost” is a gripping war story and a fitting tribute to the men who fought.

4 stars out of 5

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) *

 

I feel like I've been seeing Pedro Pascal everywhere. He played Oberyn Martel memorably on Game of Thrones. He starred in the excellent movie "Prospect." He's been making a sensation next to Baby Yoda on “The Mandalorian.” His career was just getting better and better. Now he shows up in “Wonder Woman 1984,” a role which is not going to win him any accolades. I suppose if someone offered me a gig in a blockbuster movie with a couple of hotties like Gal Gadot and Kristen Wiig, I wouldn't scrutinize the script too much, either. He should have taken a closer look.

The film picks up about 65 years after the events of 2017's "Wonder Woman." Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) has spent the years fighting injustice, saving lives, and pining for Steve Trevor, the WWI pilot who introduced her to the greater world. Steve is long gone, while Diana, as an immortal demigoddess, remains ageless, but incredibly lonely. She works at the Smithsonian, where a colleague shows her an interesting artifact, a crystal with a Latin inscription claiming that it grants wishes. Turns out the stone is real, and a shady businessman named Max Lord (Pascal) gets it, ultimately putting the entire world at risk.

There's nothing wrong with this plot framework. It doesn't come directly from the Wonder Woman comics; rather, it cobbles together a number of characters from the series into a new story, which is fine. The basic plot is sufficiently comic-y, and there's no reason the movie has to follow the comics. The problem is that the film is cobbled together poorly, with plot holes, bad acting, and cheesy cinematography. It's truly a waste. This is a talented cast, but the movie is bad, and they are bad in it. I would say Kristen Wiig comes the closest to making the best of a bad movie. Everyone else, especially director Patty Jenkins, needs to just hope that “Wonder Woman 1984” is forgotten.

Actually, I noticed that Pedro Pascal shaved his trademark beard for the role, which may have been a smart move. If he's lucky, most people won't recognize him in this turd of a movie.

1 star out of 5

Uncorked (2020) ***1/2

 

First things first: This is NOT related to the 2009 Hallmark movie of the same name. In a weird convergence, though, the main character of that Hallmark movie is named Johnetta Prentiss, while the writer and director of this 2020 film is Prentice Penny. Cue eerie music!

Mamoudou Athie plays Elijah, a young man whose family owns a successful barbecue restaurant in Memphis. This is one of those places where you can smell the smoke coming from the smoker out back, and the lunchtime line snakes out the door. Elijah's grandfather started the place, his father kept it going, and Elijah is expected to take over some day. Elijah, though, has an intense interest in wine and dreams of becoming a sommelier. Over his father's objections and despite a lack of funds, he signs up for Master Sommelier training, a notoriously difficult course of study.

It's a basic and timeworn story, and you can see the major plot points coming a mile away. Somehow, none of that matters. The easy, naturalistic acting and unpretentious dialogue simply carry you through this sweet, satisfying film. Niecy Nash and Courtney B. Vance are particularly good as Elijah's parents.

I recently re-watched the movie “Easy A,” and the dialogue in that movie just crackles. Everyone is so glib, so ready to trade witty repartee or make a pithy observation. It's fun, but no one I know in real life is close to being that verbally adroit. Hell, most people can barely string together two declarative sentences, let alone engage in banter or discuss their inner life. This is especially true for men, and that's how it is for Elijah and his father. They can talk about something that interests them, but when it comes to discussing their relationship or feelings, they just shut down. This depiction of male interactions really rang true, and the actors play it well. The actual dialogue in the film feels like the way real people talk to each other.

I also liked that the film doesn't beat us over the head with the fact that Elijah, who is from a black, working-class family, is trying to break into a snooty, white profession. I'm sure the character will face some issues of classism and racism in his chosen field, but “Uncorked” is about Elijah's individual identity, not identity politics.

It's not often that a movie puts together two of my favorite things, but “Uncorked” nails it with its combination of BBQ and wine. Even as the story unfolded, I was constantly distracted by the delicious-looking food and libations flashing across the screen. In addition to being a heartfelt story about family and coming of age, this is truly porn for the palate.

3.5 stars out of 5

Yes, God, Yes (2019) ***

 

Alice (Natalia Dyer), is a teen at a Catholic high-school. She is starting to be curious about sex, displaying more than a casual interest in the “Titanic” car-sex scene. She has never been kissed, but someone starts a rumor that she tossed a guy's salad, and now all the slut-shamers at her school are looking at her funny. The adults in her life are no help. Her parents are clueless, her teachers accept the rumor as true, and her priest is too busy teaching the evils of masturbation.

Humiliated by classmates eager to ostracize anyone who admits to the feelings that they are all having, Alice goes to a church retreat hoping to get rid of her scarlet letter. The rumor follows her there, as do her budding sexual feelings. At camp, she develops a crush, discovers masturbation and the internet, and learns that those who pretend to be the most pious can be the biggest sex-freaks.

As a vehicle for Natalia Dyer (whom you may recognize from “Stranger Things”), “Yes, God, Yes” works pretty well. The film started out as a short by writer/director Karen Maine, who got the opportunity to expand the story into a full-length film, with Dyer starring in both versions. I find Dyer to be a bit odd-looking, but appealing, with a really expressive face that she uses to good effect. The rest of the cast is pretty much what you would expect from a low-budget, indie film. None of them is going to break into the big time based on this project, but they get the job done.

The themes in “Yes, God, Yes” feel a bit dated. I mean, does anyone outside of a suicide cult still teach kids that they will burn in hell for masturbating, and are there still any kids who buy it? (Don't answer that question. I probably don't want to know.) When you look at the cellphones and computers in the film, though, you realize that it is set about 20 years ago. Maybe that makes it slightly less anachronistic? Anyway, the film does a good job satirizing faith leaders who make people feel like crap for having normal feelings, then secretly act on those feelings themselves. Like the poor, hypocrites will always be with us.

3 stars out of 5

Another Round (2020, Danish) ***

 

It's a cliché that young people drink because it's fun; older people drink because they need to. If that's true, then I imagine high school teachers have more reasons to drink than most. Martin (Mads Mikkelsen) was once a dynamic history teacher, working towards a doctorate. Those ambitions fell to various family demands, and now he is bored and boring, barely able focus on his lectures. His three friends, fellow teachers, aren't much better off.

The 4 of them come across a psychology article suggesting that human beings function better with a little alcohol on board, and they decide to put the theory to the test. Drinking small amounts throughout the day, they become happier, more animated, more dynamic teachers. Suddenly Martin is giving engaging history lessons, while his friends are getting better performances from the choir and from their sports teams. Martin is even more present with his family at home.

It works for a while, but as anyone who has drunk alcohol knows, it's hard to maintain just a little buzz. To paraphrase George Carlin, “How does alcohol make you feel? It makes you feel like having some more alcohol!” The friends have varying degrees of success maintaining an even keel.

Denmark is a flat, watery, chilly, Nordic country. If the internet can be believed (Of course it can!), the Danes tend to be a very reserved people, not prone to sharing their feelings or giving one another emotional support. In related news, they drink a lot. They don't even have a strict drinking age, and high schools there apparently serve beer in the cafeteria. Maybe Martin and his friends are just taking their natural Danish tendencies and running with them.

And what about that psychological theory? I looked up the psychologist they name, Finn Skarderud, and could not find any references to his having said that “mankind was born with a .05% blood alcohol deficit.” It's an interesting theory, though. Humans evolved from a long line of animals that were constantly in danger of starving to death or being eaten. Even early humans needed to remain constantly alert if they were to survive and protect their offspring. For today's humans, sitting comfortably at the top of the food chain, that inherited anxiety is more a hindrance than a benefit. We probably all could use something to take the edge off.

3 stars out of 5

Quigley Down Under (1990) **1/2

 

An Australian Rancher named Marston (Alan Rickman) advertises worldwide for a long-range sharpshooter and receives, in reply, his ad filled with closely-spaced bullet holes, marked “Matthew Quigley – 900 yards.” That's impressive shooting for any era, especially in the days before rifle scopes. Thus, Quigley finds himself in Australia for a lucrative job. No sooner does he arrive than he gets into a dust-up with some local toughs, defending a young woman who turns out to be mentally ill. Crazy Cora (Laura San Giacomo), as they call her, latches onto Quigley, whom she repeatedly mistakes for her ex-husband, Roy.

Elliott Marston turns out to be obsessed with the American West. He carries a six-shooter, and he is very taken with the laconic Quigley, especially after a demonstration of Quigley's shooting prowess. The job, however, is not what Quigley was expecting, and the two have a falling out that leaves Quigley and Cora fighting for their lives against Marston and his men.

With its technical discussions of firearms, shooting, and even reloading, “Quigley Down Under” should be a cinematic touchstone for target shooters. The problem is that for anyone who has done much shooting, most of the action looks ridiculous. Quigley takes these amazing shots at several hundred yards from a standing, off-hand position, which is the least stable of the shooting positions. Any real rifleman would shoot prone, or find himself a rest like a fence rail to steady his aim.

I know I'm picking nits, here, but if you take away the appeal to firearms geeks, what you are left with in “Quigley Down Under” is a fairly bland, hokey, by-the-books western that wastes the considerable talents of its cast. With his rugged face and easy drawl, Tom Selleck was born to do westerns. Alan Rickman, known for playing the villain in “Die Hard,” is a genius at spreading a thin layer of charm over an evil core. He does a pretty good job here, but the film should have given him more to work with. Laura San Giacomo has the most thankless role in the film. She probably isn't the greatest actress ever, but she was capable enough in “Sex, Lies, and Videotape, she's cute as a button, and she has the best eyebrows in Hollywood. Even those charms can't sell her poorly-written character.

I'm probably being harder on the movie than necessary because I feel it does such a disservice to its cast. The film actually has some entertainment value, and the Australian setting is an interesting twist on the Western. Unfortunately, the hackneyed writing takes what could be a classic Western and gives us a forgettable action flick.

2.5 stars out of 5

Mindhorn (2016) ***1/2

 

Julian Barratt plays Richard Thorncroft, a fictional, washed-up actor with thinning hair, a growing gut, and shrinking career options. The one bright star in his career was playing the 80's TV character Mindhorn, a detective with a robotic eye that can tell truth from lies. (As ludicrous as that sounds, it's really no more ridiculous than “Manimal” or any of the “Bionic” shows.)

Thorncroft senses a chance to revive his career when he gets a call from the police department at his old stomping grounds, the Isle of Man. A murderer is on the loose, and in taunting messages to the police, he has indicated a willingness to turn himself in, but only to detective Mindhorn. The killer seems to think that Mindhorn is a real cop, so the real-real cops ask Thorncroft to come to the Isle and play his old role again, to help them get their man.

Simultaneously smart and supremely silly, “Mindhorn” revels in the absurd. The film is an excellent specimen of good, British comedy, with all that implies. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you enjoy “Monty Python” and the British “The Office,” there's a good chance you will like this.

3.5 stars out of 5

Old School (2003) ***

 

It isn't like “Old School” is a lost classic or anything. This movie is widely beloved by men of a certain age. I had just forgotten how much fun it is!

Luke Wilson plays Mitch, a guy with a fresh heartbreak who rents a house on the local college campus. Mitch just figures it's a nice house at a good price, but his incorrigible buddy Beanie (Vince Vaughn) and the freshly-married party animal Frank (Will Ferrell) see it as an opportunity to throw wild parties, complete with co-eds. Soon, the guys are starting an un-sanctioned fraternity, open to guys of all races and ages, including non-students.

The new party house ruffles the feathers of the vindictive college dean (a staple figure in college comedies, played here by Jeremy Piven). The guys have to pull out all the stops to save their fun, new life and their fun, new friends. Basically, it's the same plot as every other college comedy, from “Animal House” on down.

It's not the Greatest Story Ever Told, but it's a recurring theme, and for good reason! It's fun to imagine going back to the days of your youth, when you had nothing better to do than hang out and party with your buds. (And study, if memory serves me right, but these movies never seem to show anyone studying or attending class.) There really is not much to the plot, but the movie gets by on the charm of its three leading men. “Old School” is like a game of Frisbee on the university quad. It doesn't cover any new ground, but it's friendly, familiar, and fun.

3 stars out of 5