This is just too damn funny not to link to — Bad Lip Reading’s second take on “The Walking Dead.”
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE FLOW, SON.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
My review of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)
It’s easy for me to understand why “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is a classic. This movie held two big surprises for me, along with a lot of other things to admire.
First were the special effects. This movie was made in 1977?! That’s a little hard for me to believe. The effects here seemed at least as good as the original (and not digitally remastered) “Star Wars,” which came out the same year. Like Star Wars, it could only have used models and forced perspective. Am I crazy if I think one or two of the effects here might have even been better? There are several scenes where the smaller (scout?) spacecraft appear to revolve 360 degrees in midair, with remarkable depth and the appearance of a three-dimensional object. Isn’t this at least as good as many sequences In Star Wars, with its more static shots of ships seen from only one angle? (In retrospect, I don’t know if the version I saw of “Close Encounters” was itself remastered or “improved.”)
Second … was my favorite TV show of all time a rip-off of a 1970’s Steven Spielberg movie?! I couldn’t believe how directly the 1990’s’ “The X-Files” seemed inspired by this – right down to an international government cover-up. “The X-Files,” of course, was a horror-thriller series, while this is a family film – which did rob it of a lot of tension. How much suspense can we really feel if we know that this material is suitable for all ages? Indeed, the worst thing to happen to any of the major characters we follow is that he falls asleep from knockout gas.
To make things even more fun, I swear I saw a cameo by (an extremely young) Lance Henriksen, who had a guest appearance on “The X-Files.” (He’s one of the scientists at the end.)
There was more about this movie to like a hell of a lot too. Richard Dreyfuss is a damn good actor. So, too, is Terri Garr – despite dialogue that makes her sound like a hysterical shrew. (Cary Guffey was also a great child actor.)
The script is smart, with characters sounding like we’d expect them to sound. Scientists are human beings who get excited over amazing discoveries, instead of being amoral automatons and devices for exposition. The kids here sound and behave like KIDS, a lot like the characters behaved in the later “E.T.: The Extraterrestrial.” And the film did a great job of juxtaposing Dreyfuss’ everyman plight with larger global events witnessed by a range of other characters.
Plus, “Close Encounters” was just plain fun. I’m not big into family movies, but even I’ve got to admit, Spielberg really does project a sense of wonder here. This seems like a great film with which to get a pre-teen interested in science fiction.
I had a few quibbles, but they were all forgivable.
- Several characters suffer unexplained “sunburns” after being near spacecraft, and then joke about it. This was 30 years after Hiroshima. Why on earth are they not terrified? If my skin burned after my proximity to strange object, I’d panic.
- One character demonstrates an incredible lack of vigilance with respect to her son.
- If a government conspiracy is so vast and resourceful, wouldn’t it make at least some effort to identify and monitor those who have had “close encounters?”
- If you think about it, the aliens actually do a Very Bad Thing. Aren’t lives destroyed by their abductions? It’s 30 years later for the returning humans, who never consented to be absent. Yet we see little concern about this – or even a single sidearm in evidence in the movie’s final scene. Wouldn’t this be an especially horrible oversight considering the nature of the scientists? They’re presumably earth’s best and brightest – perhaps even the best qualified to inform us about defending against an alien invasion. Wouldn’t it kinda suck if they were all abducted?
- A newspaper headline misspells “kidnapping.” (Sorry — I’m a former news reporter, and I can’t get past it.)
- Am I crazy, or does Dreyfuss’ character share a romantic kiss with a woman who is not his wife? This seems slightly out of place in a Spielberg movie.
- Dreyfuss’ choice at the end reflects nary an afterthought about his wife and children.
Still, this is a great movie – I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
When I was a boy, we had so little money for fabric …
… that our neckties were only an inch wide.
AND WE WERE THANKFUL FOR WHAT WE HAD.
[Thanks to Carrie Schor and Ahmad Butt (pictured) for the photo (Longwood High School, circa 1989?).]
A woman told me yesterday that I “have a dark soul.”
I am not quite sure how to respond to that.
My review of “The Chernobyl Diaries” (2012)
Well, this was disappointing. Make no mistake about it – “Chernobyl Diaries” (2012) was nowhere near as good as its trailer made it look. I’d give it a 4 out of 10, and that’s primarily for a great shooting location. (This was filmed in Serbia and Hungary, but it sure as hell looked like something filmed near the titular doomed Russian nuclear reactors.)
You want a truly frightening new found-footage horror movie? Skip this and check out the Australian gem, “The Tunnel” (2011).
My review of “30 Days of Night: Dark Days” (the original comic).
“30 Days of Night: Dark Days” is the second part of Steve Niles’ and Ben Templesmith’s original trilogy, and it’s a great read to which I’d give a 9 out of 10. It expands on the pretty minimal story set up in the first book; we learn more about the vampires and see Stella Olemaun’s crusade to fight them. It’sa first-rate, creepy, no-holds-barred horror comic.
My only quibbles are small. Templesmith’s skilled and atmospheric art is sometimes so murky we have a hard time following the action, or even differentiating among characters. There’s also a horrible plot point in which Stella apparently has sex with a vampire. (It is as exactly as stupid as it sounds.)
This is still a great book though.
My review of “Cabin In The Woods” (2012).
The fantastic “The Cabin in the Woods” (2012) is a surprise-filled movie that is difficult to review without spoilers, so I can’t say much about it. Suffice to say, I really, really liked it – I’d give it a 9 out of 10.
This is a smart, inventive film that is probably the most creative thing I’ve seen in a long time – it’s safe to say that I’ve never seen anything like it. Do yourself a favor and avoid news articles or websites like imdb.com – you’ll enjoy this much more if you know little about it.
It actually takes a while to get going. I had a lukewarm response to this movie for maybe its entire first half. The end — which brings together a surprising number of story elements (I really can’t say more) – really redeemed it. The buildup to that ending is a lot of things that have long been established as horror clichés. But that’s intentional, as screenwriter Drew Goddard and producer Joss Whedon made it, I think, partly as a parody and partly as an homage to the genre.
A few caveats … if you’ve been looking forward to this movie for a while, as I have, you’re aware that it was very well reviewed. But I’m pretty sure it got so much praise because it was creative and original – not because it was the best HORROR movie ever made. The central plot device is too contrived and fantastic to be really frightening, and the movie is too self-aware to allow us to forget it’s just a movie. Parts of it were disturbing, but there’s just too much humor to make this a truly scary movie. You’re not sitting down to “The Exorcist” or “The Shining.”
Also, various reviews seem to indicate a twist that is impossible to guess. This isn’t true. Horror fans – especially fans of a certain subgenre – will know the big reveal before the halfway mark, especially if they listen to the dialogue of the story’s antagonists. Hell, I was just talking about it with another aspiring horror writer just the other day. Don’t expect a surprise on the level of “The Sixth Sense” or “Unbreakable.”
Still, this was a hell of a lot of fun. And what a GREAT Halloween movie it would make!! It would also be fun to watch back-to-back with “Cabin Fever” or one of the “Evil Dead” movies, given their similar settings.
“He … re-opened old graves in his heart to learn/ What laws the dead had died to disobey.”
“The Third Temptation,” by W. H. Auden
(Part VIII of “the Quest”)
VIII. The Third Temptation
He watched with all his organs of concern
How princes walk, what wives and children say,
Re-opened old graves in his heart to learn
What laws the dead had died to disobey,
And came reluctantly to his conclusion:
“All the arm-chair philosophies are false;
To love another adds to the confusion;
The song of mercy is the Devil’s Waltz.”
All that he put his hand to prospered so
That soon he was the very King of creatures,
Yet, in an autumn nightmare trembled, for,
Approaching down a ruined corridor,
Strode someone with his own distorted features
Who wept, and grew enormous, and cried Woe.
YES!!
I was TRYING to make a friend remember these the other night (she’s my age), and she just didn’t recall them …
These sold for like $8 or $10 at the supermarket, and if you were seven years old, you begged for one. The shirt and pants had this weird plasticy smell! And they were STUPID costumes, because the shirt often carried the name and an illustration of the character depicted (i.e., a child pretending to be Dracula would wear a shirt with “Dracula” written across it).
“The Vagabond Poet”
I got acquainted for the first time yesterday with “The Vagabond Poet,” Don Blanding. Dear Lord … this guy’s life sounds like an adventure novel. (A WWI veteran who enlists to fight WWII at the age of 47?!)
I particularly like “The Poet and The Woman,” the first poem on the page at the link.
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 