Roger
Corman started AIP’s highly successful Edgar Allan Poe cycle with ‘House of
Usher’ in 1960 and eventually made 8 films in the series culminating with
‘The Tomb of Ligiea’ in 1965. Corman may have had his fill of Poe, but AIP
still saw money in the series and passed the reins to British director
Gordon Hessler starting with ‘The Oblong Box’ in 1969. While Hessler is no
slouch as a director, the fact is most of the best Poe stories had already
been used. Still, Hessler did as good a job as he could considering the
material he and writer Christopher Wicking had to work with and the budgets,
schedules, and guidelines given them by AIP.
‘Cry of the Banshee’ actually isn’t too bad. Vincent
Price is Lord Edward Whitman, a nobleman who persecutes those in his village
that practice “the old religion”. Initially scoffing at the idea that
witchcraft might have any real power, events soon occur which shake his
beliefs. Lord Edward and his sons massacre several members of a local coven
but leave its leader Oona (Elisabeth Bergner) and a few followers alive. In
retaliation, Oona places a curse on the Whitman family and prays to Satan
for an avenger. She gets one in the person of Rodderick (Patrick Mower), a
servant in the Whitman household of mysterious origin who is carrying on a
love affair with Lord Edward‘s daughter Maureen (Hilary Dwyer). The
expected carnage ensues. Thanks to some good performances, excellent
cinematography, and an unusually sympathetic portrayal of its pagan cultists
‘Cry of the Banshee’ manages to be slightly better than average for a
seventies gothic horror flick.
‘Murders in the Rue Morgue’ is just a waste. Star
Jason Robards clearly doesn’t care about his role and the script is a
jumbled mess. Robards is Cesar, the proprietor and star of a Grand Guignol
style Paris theatre. His company, which includes his wife Madeline
(Christine Kaufman), is staging a production of Poe’s “Murders in the Rue
Morgue” when the actor playing the gorilla is found murdered. From there
the movie turns into a standard revenge flick and there’s never any mystery
as to who is doing the killing. It’s a former member of Cesar‘s troupe
named Marot (Herbert Lom), a one time rival of Cesar’s for the affections of
Madeline’s mother. Everyone thought Marot killed himself after being
scarred with acid in a bizarre acting “accident”, but it turns out that was
just one of his better perfomances. What makes this movie especially
painful is Cesar‘s complete refusal to see the obvious. He’s so stupid
you’ll be rooting for him to die. For the relatively low price MGM is
asking for this double feature, it’s still not a bad deal for ‘Cry of the
Banshee’. There’s also a pair of interesting interviews with director
Hessler, one with each feature. (Bob Ignizio)
Not
since ‘The English Patient’ have I seen a film so overrated by the vast
majority of film critics. Yeah, Haynes does a super job of replicating the
look and feel of late fifties “women’s pictures” like ‘Imitation of Life’.
Once you get past that, however, there’s just not much substance. That’s
not to say that ‘Far From Heaven’ doesn’t deal with issues. But that’s
really just part of the pastiche. It doesn’t have anything new or
interesting to say on these issues, it just covers them because this sort of
movie is supposed to have some kind of social theme. What goes on behind
the doors of upper middle class suburbia? Frankly I don’t care. Some
people in the fifties frowned on interracial relationships and
homosexuality? No shit. ‘Far From Heaven’ is beautifully shot, exquisitely
scored, and well acted but the artifice of the whole thing grew tiresome for
me pretty quickly. Of course I like watching movies like ‘Blood Feast’, so
take this review how you will. (Bob Ignizio)
Wow,
another sequel that doesn’t suck! For pure fun I think I liked ‘X-Men
2’ better, but this Matrix sequel has a little more going on at the
intellectual level and will probably be a movie I wind up watching
multiple times, at least once the DVD comes out. But don’t wait for
home video for your first viewing. This is the kind of movie that was
made for the big screen.
It’s been a few years since the end of the first
film, and Neo (Keanu Reeves) has become pretty comfortable with his
abilities. What he’s not comfortable with is the way he’s treated as a
deity by many of the residents of Zion, a subterranean city where those
who have been awakened from the artificial dream world of The Matrix
reside. He’s also having disturbing dreams in which Trinity (Carrie Ann
Moss) appears to die. Morpheus (Lawrence Fishburne) and the new crew
of The Nebedchanezur are waiting for a message from The Oracle (Gloria
Foster), but an imminent attack by the evil robotic overlords of planet
earth has time running out. Some critics complained that ‘X-Men 2’ had
too many new characters. ‘The Matrix Reloaded’ ought to make their
heads explode. Lots of new faces here, including Harold Perrineau Jr.
as Link, the new “operator” on board Morpheus’ ship and Jada Pinkett as
Niobe, an old flame of Morpheus. There are plenty of new bad guys as
well, including Lambert Wilson as “The Merovingian” and Adrian and Neil
Rayment as twin “ghosts”. As if that weren’t enough Agent Smith (Hugo
Weaving) seems to have grown in power since being “killed” by Neo in the
first film. There are a lot of new plot elements and ideas as well, so
you’d better pay attention.
I don’t know if this is a better film than ‘The
Matrix’, but it’s at least as good. The Wachowski’s have crafted a
sequel that should satisfy fans of the first film without repeating
themselves. This truly feels like part of a bigger saga and not just an
excuse to print money because the first film was so successful. While
I’m sure many viewers will love all the action scenes, I have to say
that a couple of them (especially an amazing freeway chase/fight scene)
were just a bit over the top for my tastes. But there’s plenty here for
serious sci fi fans and action addicts alike. It should be noted that
this film ends on a cliffhanger. At least you won’t have to wait long,
though. The final chapter of The Matrix trilogy is scheduled to hit
movie screens this winter. (Bob Ignizio)
Was
this trip really necessary? I mean, this isn’t a bad movie but it was
already done better in 1986 by Michael Mann in his excellent film ‘Manhunter’.
Why couldn’t someone have just given that unjustly neglected film a
theatrical re-release (preferably in it’s “director’s cut” version) with
a new ad campaign that played up Hannibal Lecter’s presence in the
story? While this remake stays closer to Thomas Harris’ novel than
‘Manhunter’ did, the end result is far less satisfying. Ratner is an ok
director but he’s basically a company man. He delivers what’s on the
pages of the script but doesn’t really put much of a stamp on the
material. He’s not especially adept at building suspense or creating
atmosphere, either.
There’s a powerhouse cast but few of them are doing
their best work here. Anthony Hopkins as Lecter seems like he’s just
doing an old routine. Edward Norton as Will Graham is bland, Harvey
Keitel is wasted as FBI director Jack Crawford, and Ralph Fiennes is
terribly miscast as serial killer Francis Dollarhyde. He brings none of
the genuine menace Tom Noonan brought to the part in ‘Manhunter’. To be
fair that’s not entirely his fault. The script (and the original book)
play up Dollarhyde‘s sympathetic side too much. Mann’s version managed
to achieve pathos without diluting the fearful presence of “The Red
Dragon”. Sometimes straying from the source isn’t such a bad idea. On
the plus side Emily Watson does a decent job filling Joan Allen’s shoes
as a blind woman who enters into a romantic relationship with Dollarhyde
and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is his usual amazing self in the small role
of tabloid reporter Freddie Lounds.
The part of Hannibal Lecter has been beefed up
somewhat in this version, since Anthony Hopkins reprisal of that role is
the only reason for this film to exist. The most noteworthy example of
this tweaking is a pre-credits sequence (not in the book) in which we
see how Will Graham originally captured everybody’s favorite cannibal.
The rest of the story pretty much follows the formula writer Thomas
Harris used in his “sequel”, ‘Silence of the Lambs’. Graham, fighting
back his fear, must enlist the aid of Hannibal to capture another serial
killer. If you haven’t already seen ‘Manhunter’, this would probably
make for a decent night’s entertainment. But then again, ‘Manhunter’ is
available on video as well. I recommend you rent that instead. (Bob
Ignizio)
Roger
Corman started AIP’s highly successful Edgar Allan Poe cycle with ‘House of
Usher’ in 1960 and eventually made 8 films in the series culminating with
‘The Tomb of Ligiea’ in 1965. Corman may have had his fill of Poe, but AIP
still saw money in the series and passed the reins to British director
Gordon Hessler starting with ‘The Oblong Box’ in 1969. While Hessler is no
slouch as a director, the fact is most of the best Poe stories had already
been used. Still, Hessler did as good a job as he could considering the
material he and writer Christopher Wicking had to work with and the budgets,
schedules, and guidelines given them by AIP. 
Not
since ‘The English Patient’ have I seen a film so overrated by the vast
majority of film critics. Yeah, Haynes does a super job of replicating the
look and feel of late fifties “women’s pictures” like ‘Imitation of Life’.
Once you get past that, however, there’s just not much substance. That’s
not to say that ‘Far From Heaven’ doesn’t deal with issues. But that’s
really just part of the pastiche. It doesn’t have anything new or
interesting to say on these issues, it just covers them because this sort of
movie is supposed to have some kind of social theme. What goes on behind
the doors of upper middle class suburbia? Frankly I don’t care. Some
people in the fifties frowned on interracial relationships and
homosexuality? No shit. ‘Far From Heaven’ is beautifully shot, exquisitely
scored, and well acted but the artifice of the whole thing grew tiresome for
me pretty quickly. Of course I like watching movies like ‘Blood Feast’, so
take this review how you will. (Bob Ignizio)
Wow,
another sequel that doesn’t suck! For pure fun I think I liked ‘X-Men
2’ better, but this Matrix sequel has a little more going on at the
intellectual level and will probably be a movie I wind up watching
multiple times, at least once the DVD comes out. But don’t wait for
home video for your first viewing. This is the kind of movie that was
made for the big screen. 
Was
this trip really necessary? I mean, this isn’t a bad movie but it was
already done better in 1986 by Michael Mann in his excellent film ‘Manhunter’.
Why couldn’t someone have just given that unjustly neglected film a
theatrical re-release (preferably in it’s “director’s cut” version) with
a new ad campaign that played up Hannibal Lecter’s presence in the
story? While this remake stays closer to Thomas Harris’ novel than
‘Manhunter’ did, the end result is far less satisfying. Ratner is an ok
director but he’s basically a company man. He delivers what’s on the
pages of the script but doesn’t really put much of a stamp on the
material. He’s not especially adept at building suspense or creating
atmosphere, either. 