(3-D) Ghost in You

Halloween's over! Time to write about horror movies! My timing is excellent!

I love horror movies - good ones, bad ones and so forth. This year, I tried to arrange my Netflix queue to have a line of horror movies before, at and after Halloween, which sort of worked out. Since I started watching American Horror Story (FX), I've become more interested in haunted houses (or, actually, the history of how haunted houses are depicted in movies and TV). And I've seen quite a few haunted house movies as of late - decent ones, like Burnt Offerings (1976 - and I had no idea about the Dark Shadows connection until I just looked it up to get the release year...but anway, the ending, Karen Black!) and 13 Ghosts (the original 1960 version - not the 'remake' very 1990s-feeling update in 2001).

Long story short (too late!), I watched a terrible, awful haunted house movie this weekend - Amityville 3-D (1983)...the third in the series and in 3-D (get it?). Did the movie really need to be in 3-D (note - my Netflix version was not in 3-D but you could figure out what was supposed to appear as if it was coming out of the screen - breaking glass, etc)? Nope. The only part that would have been cool in 3-D was when the swordfish on the wall went flying. For such an awful movie, I was disappointed by the lack of cheap 3-D shots it didn't take (if it had, ala 13 Ghosts, it may have made the film a little more 'campy' and likeable).

Amityville 3-D opens with a fantastic concept/scene - a couple (an old shyster couple!) is conning people by holding fake seances in the Amityville spooky house. Our main male character, some sort of investigative writer/creepy guy and his lady friend/photographer (?) bust the couple for their investigative fraud busting magazine. Cool! But, from what I know of haunted houses and whatnot, wouldn't the spirits of the Amityville house be pissed that this shyster couple had rigged up the house to trick people? Or be tempted to join in on the rigged fun?

Anyway, our main male character, who is so unlikeable, really, decides for some reason to buy the house (it was a good deal? good school district? close to work?). And that's what annoys me about this film - all the characters that you are supposed to be rooting for - the main male, his lady friend, his wife (ex-wife?), the nerdy ghost-investigator professor guy - are so bland and unpleasant and unlikeable...that, really, by the end, I was rooting for the house. Seriously. I love that Amityville house.

Character development was just non-existent (I know, I know, it's an early '80s horror film). For example, our main male's lady friend, the photographer (?)...she goes over to Amityville house to meet up with him, but he's not home yet (and the 'wacky' housekeeper - who the ghosts don't mess with? - gets out of the house as soon as she shows up) so she has to wait for him. Alone. Now, I would assume that if you are some sort of photographer for a skeptic, myth busting magazine, you've probably seen a lot in your time and you would not be so freaked out at being alone and not be so freaking whiny about it. Or you'd just see that his car is not in the driveway and you'd wait for him to get home, in the safety and comfort of your own car, which can drive away at high speeds, if necessary.

Also off was the pacing. I realize, again, it was an early '80s film and I have no attention span, but it was so drawn out and boring (in keeping with the first one?). I was so excited, though, in one later scene, with the main male and his wife (ex-wife?) in the Amityville kitchen, you can see something in the background...a Five Alive carton! Five Alive! I miss that juice. I wonder why they stopped making it. Back to timing - so main male is a skeptical myth busting writer, who works (?) at a skeptical myth busting magazine with a friend (?) who investigates ghosts and what not, who should have myth busting resources aplenty to help him as he moves into this notorious house (a house with such a bad reputation that the houses near it won't even sell!). He knows the history of this house, he's seeing people turn up dead (realtor/owner of the house, lady friend, eventually his daughter)...why wait until the LAST 15 minutes of the movie to invite professor haunts a lot and his ghost busting team of investigators over to check out the house??

I did walk away from the movie thinking about the 3-D craze of the 1980s and how it ties into our current 3-D oversaturation...really, does every movie coming out now need to be in 3-D? Isn't regular old '2-D' (or what is it called, real-D or something?) enough?

On a side note, unlikeable main male is played by Tony Roberts, who appeared on several Law & Order episodes! And an episode of Murder She Wrote! I have a slight new appreciation for him now...

And, absolutely not related, did you know that "Ghost in You" was covered by not only Counting Crows but also by (ughs) Mark McGrath?

Milk

[originally posted on myspace on June 16, 2010]

(more of a reaction than a review)

Long story short, I now have Netflix, so I am catching up on all the movies (many) I never saw in theaters.

After a string of happy, lighter films, I got Milk in the mail. I was leery. It looked good, but it was a biopic, a biopic on someone (Harvey Milk) who was murdered, so, I mean, it's bound to be dark and sad, right?

No, it wasn't. Yes, it was sad that he was murdered and the reason why he was murdered was sad...but it was really a movie about pushing past your lot in life and trying to make things better for your people, whoever they might be. And, I'm sure, as it's a biopic about a murdered person, it glosses over, it makes him more of a saint than he might have really been, more of a fictional character than real...I had trouble believing he was so focussed on what he was fighting for and that he, essentially, predicted his own death (I'm getting jaded, yes?).

There was a scene, early on, where Milk says he is almost 40 years old and hasn't done anything with his life (this is right before he departs for San Francisco and eventually starts his political career). Who hasn't felt that? To be a particular age and question everything, all the past years and decades and want to do something, anything.

Anyway, it was a good film. At times, a little heavy handed, but overall, really good. Sean Penn is such a good actor. It's scary to think that not that long ago (the late '70s), so close to home (the film shows footage from Miami), the cops were dragging gays out of nightclubs and arresting them.

So, I told my mom what movie I had watched and who it was about. She had no clue who I was talking about. Now, I will admit, I don't remember when I first heard about Harvey Milk, certainly not in any of my history classes in elementary, junior high, high school or college (which is so very sad, but contemporary history is typically never covered...they usually got up to the Industrial Revolution). My mom, however, is a history buff, she was alive when this all happened, she was living in South Florida during the whole Anita Bryant thing. When I referenced Anita Bryant, she knew that name, remembered the whole orange juice connection. I told her that the man who shot Milk, that his lawyers used the "Twinkie Defense" (I had zero idea about that as well, had often heard the "Twinkie Defense" referenced but had no clue it was in relation to Milk).

So, no one knows history. And fairly recently history at that.

On the Netflix website, there were lots of positive reviews, one equating it to a gay version of Malcolm X (and I think this is the biopic formula, so...) and one...one that made no sense to me. One that I read before I watched that made me get a preconceived image of the film before I even watched it (reviews are, for the most part, evil in that way). And as I watched, I got angry at this reviewer, who obviously did not watch the same movie I did.

The reviewer said that the point of the movie was to "push the gay activist agenda" and that there were "disturbing sex scenes."

Yeah, after reading that, I was expecting some explicit scenes (it was a Gus Van Sant movie, after all).

In reality, minimum sex scenes. There were kissing scenes, but it was Milk with two boyfriends from his lifetime, not random one night stands. And the kissing scenes were barely ever on the mouth and both the kissing and sex scenes (two total, I believe) were so fast, so covered in shadows. They were, artistically at the very least, beautiful. That this reviewer could see something "disturbing" in all that, that he (or she) could miss the whole entire point of the movie and dismiss it as "agenda," makes me sad for society and wonder how far we've really come (if at all) in acceptance.

Rollercoaster, the movie, the review (aka: Happy Birthday, Malcolm X)

[originally posted on myspace on Saturday, May 19, 2007]

(aka: Don't read movie reviews!)

I spent many of my formative years (do you still have formative years by high school? Eh, whatever) watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 and, as a result, I love to watch bad movies. I have one cable channel that tends to play lots of '70s movies which is so fantastic for the bad movie cravings. There is a second channel that will show the same movie that is on the retro channel, but starting about an hour behind. If you miss the beginning on the retro channel, you can usually catch it on the other channel.

So, the other night, I am flipping through the channels and see a listing for a movie called Rollercoaster. A movie about rollercoasters? Maybe this is like Jaws? An evil rollercoaster? I was slightly interested. The basic TV description just said it was about a maniac bombing amusement parks. Amusement parks in the 1970s. I had to watch.

To be honest, I did not see the movie in it's entirety. I saw maybe the last half on the retro channel and the first twenty minutes on the other channel (to answer all my unanswered questions).

I searched for the movie the next day online (it's on DVD!), expecting a ton of nasty reviews, rankings on worst movie top fifty lists, etc. I was wrong. The reviewer on allmovie.com loved the film for it's "modesty" (just want you want in an action/suspense movie). Tons of rollercoaster-love related websites reveled in this movie. I highly recommend everyone see it for it's pure 1970s bliss (I used to watch Rockford Files reruns for the same reason) and for it's badness. You probably won't get through it all in one sitting, but try (it's on again towards the end of May, search your TIVO). So, here is my review, in honor of it's wonderful crappiness.

The 1970s were a simpler time, when you could build a suspense, horror and/or disaster film around something simple, like a shark, a dog, the mall, a cruise ship or Robert De Niro. And maybe future generations will say the same in thirty years (hello, Snakes on a Plane). In 1977, Hollywood set out to scare us the hell away from amusement parks.

The storyline of Rollercoaster is simple. There is a crazy man who likes explosives and doesn't (apparently) like rollercoasters. Credited as "Young Man," our villain causes some damage, tries to extort money from amusement park owners and blows some more stuff up. It is never explained why he is doing this, outside of the money (maybe he worked for Disneyland). The review on allmovie claims our villain has a "devious intellect." If the people you are against are just plain stupid, I don't think it means you are smart by default. The other review also applauds the movie for it's character development. Yes, not giving your villain, who is all over this movie, a name, that is fantastic attention to detail.

The film gives lots of detail to the character of Harry Calder (played by George Segal). For some reason, our villain really likes Calder (or maybe he's using him as a pawn, oh so devious) resulting in a long sequence of Calder following the radioed commands of our villain, who forces him to go on rides while carrying the briefcase full of the demanded money (great part of this movie – Segal in a suit riding a bunch of rides, too funny). Our hero is the head of some sort of amusement park ride inspection agency (though other summaries say he is a police detective). Regardless, he is one of my favorite aspects of 1970s movies – the everyman. He's gruff (aka down to earth) and somehow super-smart and probably drinks a lot. He's got a girlfriend/wife and a kid (it's Helen Hunt!). His superiors try to keep him out of the case and dismiss all his "crazy" ideas, but in the end, have to turn to him because he is the one that will save the day.

Another 1970s staple of this film was the cinematography. Lots and lots of gloriously unnecessary, indulgent scenery shots, shots of crowds and of rollercoaster track, as if someone from the studio said, you need to slap thirty more minutes of film onto this movie. I was just in heaven watching the crowd shots (lots and lots of 'em), to see the clothes and the hair. Apparently, when the movie was first in theaters, it was shown in Sensurround, where the chairs in the theater would shake during certain scenes (explaining the lots of lots of rollercoaster ride scenes).

And in what is probably my favorite 1970s staple – the musical performance. The band Sparks performs towards the end at an outdoor concert (right before the big climax of the movie, right before our hero chases down the villain). Sparks performs two songs, but the best part is the scene in which Ron Mael is chilling out at his piano and it really looks like he has completely forgotten that he's being filmed (shortly after, he starts breaking equipment). Sidenote: Five years after this movie, Sparks bassist Jim Mankey would co-found the band Concrete Blonde.

It drags. The dialogue is laughable. Come on, it's a movie about amusement parks. If you can get through it, Rollercoaster is worth it for the concept and for the pure 1970s of it. You will laugh, you will get a little confused, and you will wonder how plausible parts are. And you get to see '70s mustached, permed, leisure-suit wearing men at an amusement park. So good and so bad on so many levels that it makes you wish MST3K was still around.