List of Reviews

A
The Amityville Horror (Rosenberg 1979)
At the Circus (Buzzell 1939)

B
Being There (Ashby 1979)
Black Legion (Mayo 1937)
Black Sheep (King 2006)
Blue in the Face (Auster and Wang 1995)
The Box (Kelly 2009)
Brimstone & Treacle (Loncraine 1982)

C
Cheap (Jones 2004)

D
Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (Flemyng 1966)
Doctor Who: The Movie (Sax 1996)
Dr. Who and the Daleks (Flemyng 1965)

E

F
Freak Out (Jones 2003)

G

H
Harold and Maude (Ashby 1971)

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P
Paranormal Activity (Peli 2007/2009)
Payback/Payback: Straight Up (Helgeland 1999/2006)
The Princess and the Frog (Clements and Musker 2009)

Q

R

S
Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie 2009)
Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (Sam Liu 2009)

T
Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (Harrison 1990)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 (Hooper 1986)

U

V

W
White Dog (Samuel Fuller 1982)
Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (Harrington 1971)
The Wolf Man (Waggner 1941)
The Wolfman (Johnston 2010)
Woyzeck (Herzog 1979)

X

Y

Z

Films for Those Who Love Valentine's Day, and Those Who Hate Valentine's Day

Five Films for Those Who Love Valentine's Day

1. Say Anything



2. Bringing Up Baby



3. Grosse Pointe Blank



4. Mad Dog and Glory



5. Shaun of the Dead



Five Films for Those Who Hate Valentine's Day

1. Hot Fuzz



2. Bubba Ho-Tep



3. The War of the Roses



4. The Fly (1986)



5. Dead Ringers

Woyzeck (Herzog 1979)

There are some ways of describing a film that have simply become clichés, and I do my best to avoid using them. Referring to a film as a “minor work” is one such description that has fallen into overuse. Yet when it comes to Werner Herzog’s Woyzeck, I really cannot think of anything better than to describe it as a minor work. While I still have many films to go in my viewing of all of Herzog’s work, Woyzeck simply feels like a filler project, going over ideas and concepts that other films and filmmakers, including Herzog himself, have touched on before without really saying anything new, or at least finding a new vantage point from which to talk about these topics.

Based on a play by Georg Buchner and set in the early 1800s, Woyzeck is the story of Franz Woyzeck (Klaus Kinski, once a frequent collaborator with Herzog despite their equally frequent clashes), a poor private in the military whom has had an illegitimate child with his wife Marie (Eva Mattes). To earn money for his family, Franz performs tasks for his Captain, who views him as little more than a cheap amusement, and also works as a guinea pig for a local doctor’s bizarre and cruel experiments. Used an abused, Franz hears voices inside his head, but seemly remains stable enough to ensure his family is taken care of. When his Captain lets slip that Franz’s wife is having an affair with a Drum Major, the last remains of Franz’s sanity begin to collapse with tragic results.

Woyzeck certainly isn’t a bad film, yet it never manages to be as engaging as one would hope from a work by Herzog. Herzog approaches the film in a fairly detached and ironic manner, utilizing a series of long takes with a mostly stationary camera which allows the viewer to carefully observe Franz Woyzeck and the world around him. Herzog also presents the events of the film in a manner which may be linear, or may be totally fragmented, furthering the feeling of disconnect from the world of the film. In taking this approach to the film, Herzog allows the viewer to be objective in the act of watching the narrative unfold while at the same time giving viewers a sense of how Franz views the world. The balance between objectivity and subjectivity is a major accomplishment, and for that alone the film is certainly worth viewing. Furthermore, Herzog's approach to the film transforms the viewer into one of the clinical scientists and military officials that observe Franz as a curiosity, a point made clear time and again when Kinski as Franz gazes out of the screen and directly at the viewer, seemingly lost in confusion and pain and in search of answers that never come, thus putting the whole of the cinematic apparatus under critical examination.

However, as magnificent as the film making and narrative technique are, Woyzeck never really manages to be overly involving on any level. Emotionally, the film is too detached to truly draw in the viewer into the narrative. We have a sense of who Franz is, and even a limited understanding of him, yet as noted, the viewer is encouraged to remain distanced from Franz and approach him (and the film as a whole) from an intellectual perspective. Yet intellectually the film is not overly involving either. Class politics, time, religion, money, exploitation and the relationship between the individual and the whole of society are all subjects that the film examines, yet it all feels tired and doesn't offer anything new to the discussion of these topics. Indeed,much of the subject matter and even the observational, detached style are reminiscent of Herzog’s earlier film The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974). While both films are certainly different from one another, Woyzeck in many ways feels like a collection of ideas that Herzog didn’t get to use in the earlier work, resulting in Woyzeck feeling like a retread rather than a progression for Herzog as a filmmaker.

The film also occasionally suffers from the conflict between Herzog’s brilliant cinematic visuals and the dialogue that comes from the original play (presumably from the play, I really should say, as I have never read the work, nor seen a production of it). It’s not that the dialogue is bad, but rather that Herzog makes many of his points visually, nullifying the need for the dialogue. I admit that this point is a nitpick, but it was certainly something that occurred to me during the film and continued to bother me afterwards.

Yet, I don’t want to come down too hard on Woyzeck, as there is wonderful material to be found in the film, from moments of grim satirical humour with both the Captain and the Doctor, to the brilliant execution of a scene of murder that is shockingly violent whilst showing the viewer nothing. Then there is the haunting closing shot in the film, with the sinister and ironic closing text that does manage to bring the film to a powerful close.

Then of course, there is Klaus Kinski, who is at his reserved best in the film as the title character. Tortured, confused and yet strangely articulate, Kinski manages to portray a dissent into madness in a manner that dodges the overblown performances of other actors in similar roles. It isn’t Kinski’s definitive work, but it is damn fine work that continues to show why Kinski is held in such high regard as an actor.

Still, I cannot help but feel that Woyzeck is a film that should probably wait until one has seen all of Herzog’s greater works, or viewed before seeing any of his efforts. It’s a good film, but in a career of great films, flawed but ambitious films, and films that are fascinating failures, Woyzeck can wait to be seen.

Update and something cool from the DVD Verdict

Hey folks! Hope you have been enjoying the first two reviews of the month!

The next review should be up Friday, Werner Herzog's 1979 film Woyzeck. After this bit of mid-70s German filmmaking from the infamous duo will be followed early next week with a review of a different film dealing with abused military soliders: Universal Soldier: Regeneration. Yes, you read that right.

As for the delayed Star Trek series of film reviews, they will begin starting next month, but they will be done in groups rather than as individual films for a few reasons. Also, expect that these reviews will be limited to one set a month, as I want too keep a variety of reviews happening over the course of the month.

Lastly, I just want to guide people to this review over at the DVD Verdict by Judge David Johnson. Funny stuff sir!

Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (Flemyng 1966)

Finally, we reach the end of the Doctor Who film reviews, with the sequel to Dr. Who and the Daleks (Flemyng 1995), Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (for the sake of readability, from now on I am just going to write 2150 A.D. when it comes to the title). Again adapting a Terry Nation script from the series as the basis for the film, the Dalek story “The Dalek Invasion of Earth,” the story of both the film and television versions follow the crew of the TARDIS as they land in London of the 22nd century, only to find the Daleks have invaded and now occupy Earth, transforming various citizen’s into Robomen, squads of mind controlled humans who police the streets of London,rounding up humans to work in mines. The reason for the Daleks digging to the core of Earth is unknown, but the TARDIS crew find themselves caught up in events and fighting alongside the resistance in a desperate hope to solve the mystery of the Daleks plan and save Earth.



The original television version of the story is an excellent and significant serial in the history of show, if perhaps undermined by some poor science. Whereas the first Dalek story was a moral and ethical drama, the second story addresses the issues surrounding being a country occupied by a military force, and how it corrupts human values. Furthermore, the story is a character driven piece, addressing issues of identity and how we define who we are. The Doctor (William Hartnell) is very much an individual who defines himself as being the outsider: no true home save the TARDIS, living outside the bounds of time and space and in the early days refusing to name just where he was from, the Doctor revelled in the freedom his lifestyle provided. In stark contrast to him is his granddaughter Susan, who from the beginning of the series has been looking for a place to belong. “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” is really her story, as she finds a home and place among the human’s of the 22nd century, resulting in the first ever companion leaving the series in a touching and iconic scene, as the Doctor says goodbye to his only existing blood relative (that we know of) in his own peculiar, yet perfect, fashion.

Once again, all of this wonderful character and thematic material is gutted from the film adaptation, with 2150 A.D. being nowhere near the equal of its television original, just like Dr. Who and the Daleks. The darker elements of the story are toned down and the characters are reduced to stock adventure types. However, unlike its predecessor, 2150 A.D. manages to function well enough given the simpler goals it sets out to achieve. While Dr. Who and the Daleks’ narrative suffered from the simplification of the moral complexities upon which the original story hinged, 2150 A.D. manages to function well enough as an adventure yarn to be entertaining, if totally hollow and ultimately forgettable.




While hardly the grim yet hopeful narrative of the television original, 2150 A.D. noticeably takes itself more seriously than Dr. Who and the Daleks, cutting back on the forced slapstick and camp humour that was totally out of place in the last film. While some out of place humour crops up from time to time here, it is more tolerable this time thanks to the presence of actor Bernard Cribbins as the character Tom Campbell, a police officer who accidentally ended up in the TARDIS on its journey into the future. Campbell is a replacement for the character of Ian, apparently written out of the film due to the unavailability of actor Roy Castle. This is an absolute blessing, as Castle’s performance as Ian was the case of an actor simply trying too hard to make the material work, playing the character as a walking cartoon. Cribbins’ Tom by contrast is a competent man in a situation he didn’t ask to be in, and the moments of comedy involving Tom are more natural as he tries to work out the situation he has found himself in. Cribbins’ is good enough that a painful scene involving Tom trying to behave like a Roboman almost works. Oh, and for the record, I am not praising Cribbins’ acting in the film only in light of his wonderful work on the modern Doctor Who series as the character Wilf.

The returning actors also seem to be making a stronger effort here, with Peter Cushing being noticeably more energetic and lively compared to the last outing, though the weaknesses of that performance may have been the result of the script’s failings to make the warm and cuddly Doctor Cushing played make the darker decisions that Hartnell’s initially anti-heroic Doctor did in the original episodes. Once again promoted to the forefront of all the action, Cushing makes his Dr. Who quirky and fascinating enough to engage the viewers through the entire running time.

The biggest step up however is on the part of director Gordon Flemyng, who seems far more at ease with the large scale set pieces in this film than he was dealing with the various conversation scenes in the last film. While he still has no understanding of subtly, Flemyng does manage to keep the pace moving this time out, packing in enough modestly budgeted spectacle to temporarily overcome the failings of the rest of the film.




Still, when it is all said and done, 2150 A.D. is really nothing to go out of your way to see. Along with the major flaws noted earlier, the film is internally inconsistent with regards to the Daleks, who apparently can take direct explosions from high powered bombs, but will be destroyed when smashed gently by a small truck or thrown off a ramp. Furthermore, the major flaw of the television version returns to plague the film adaptation as well: the Daleks’ plan makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. At least the television version bothers to make its character drama interesting enough so that the reveal of the plan doesn’t result in laughter on the part of the viewer during the final few episodes. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the film.

Thus, we arrive at the end of the series of Doctor Who film reviews begun in December. The final verdict on all three films is the same: each is a well meaning attempt to expand the audience and awareness of the Doctor character, but each ultimately fails for a variety of reasons. As such, I highly recommend letting the show do the talking for itself, be it the classic series or the current revival. Trust me when I say it is well worth the investment of time and effort to watch.

The Wolf Man (Waggner 1941)

Why have I never seen The Wolf Man before now? I am not sure that I really have an answer to that question, or rather, an answer that is satisfactory. Mainly, I have just never felt a drive to see the film, unlike other classic Universal monster films. However, having picked up the Legacy Edition release for less than ten dollars and the release of the remake in a week’s time, my list of excuses has run out. As such, I have finally seen The Wolf Man and after all this time I can say it is an ambitious and complex film that never manages to reach the heights of its more famous siblings, Frankenstein (1931) and Dracula (1931).

The Wolf Man tells the tale of Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), who returns to his family home in Wales after his brother’s death, to become the new heir to his father’s (Claude Rains) estate. Smitten with a local woman named Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), Talbot joins her and her friend Jenny in going to see a nearby gypsy to have their fortune’s read. When Jenny is attacked by an animal, Talbot’s rush to her defence ends with two dead bodies and Talbot injured. As more and more animal attacks take place, Talbot finds himself under increasing scrutiny from the community and increasingly questioning his own state of mind as he is confronted with evidence that he may be becoming a werewolf.

At its best, The Wolf Man is a clever examination of both patriarchy and the expectations which a society and culture place upon an individual, particularly the ideas of what it means to be masculine during the journey from childhood to adulthood. While Talbot is a fully grown man, who has lived on his own for some time, he is a strikingly childlike figure in a somewhat adolescent situation. Unlike Baron Von Frankenstein’s (Basil Rathbone) return to the family manner in Son of Frankenstein (1939), Talbot returns home to a very much living father as a second choice heir, having to wait to take control. Despite Chaney’s massive size, Talbot is a character who is dominated by the world around him, literally and figuratively, from his father’s massive house to the fact that Talbot’s identity in the community is totally understood in terms of being the son of his father. Whatever accomplishments Talbot has made elsewhere in the world are of no value in this community. He lacks agency of his own, and the public nature of this lack sets in motion a crisis of masculinity which triggers the events of the rest of the film as he attempts to prove his worth as a male.

Talbot’s initial pursuit of Gwen is highly aggressive and voyeuristic, and it is this attempt to prove his masculine identity through sexual dominance which leads to a very different “masculine” display in his physical confrontation with a similar predator, the gypsy Bela (Bela Lugosi), whom is also a werewolf. The events surrounding the confrontation are filled with irony: while Talbot fails to save Jenny, he proves his physical prowess and “masculine worth” as community understands it by killing the predator Bela, only for the event to be misunderstood and used as proof of a possible mental weakness on the part of Talbot when the aftermath of the battle fails to match Talbot’s claimed experience. These multilayered ironies in the early third of The Wolf Man are a joy to behold, and set up a fascinating exploration of the failings of modern concepts of masculinity, which serve little more than to cover the base nature of the male animal in the film.

The second act of the film follows on from the first as Talbot’s status and identity come under the scrutiny of the entire community, and Talbot finds himself sidelined by doctors, police and his own father. Everyone feels that they know what happened about the death of Jenny and Bela, as well as whom Talbot is, more so than Talbot himself, resulting in his opinions and knowledge being dismissed and misunderstood. Chaney’s performance is at is most fantastic during these sections of the film, as he starts to unravel and his facial and physical reactions become increasingly similar to that of a frustrated child, assisted by the def direction from George Waggner. This is perhaps best encompassed in a scene in a church, as the camera tracks down the pews of people, each turning back and staring at Talbot at the back of the building, leading right to his father at the front of the church who turns to face his son with confusion, leading Talbot to run from the building. It is a powerful moment, and perhaps the film’s most memorable.

The film also takes on an interestingly feminist stance as female knowledge and power is upheld over that of institutionalised male knowledge and power. Talbot finds himself increasingly torn between the expectations of his father and the understanding of his situation that the motherly Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya) holds, a point which is expanded beyond the familial to the societal in a moment when Maleva tries to save Gwen late in the film, only to be ignored. The ideals and leadership of patriarchy are not only destructive to the male, but to women who believe in it. It is no surprise when the film, towards the conclusion, features a scene in which the marginalized mother figure confronts the literal father, and undermines his false authority and beliefs.

So, given that the film is rich in ironies, complex ideas and features uniquely progressive gender politics, why the reserved recommendation on my part? Despite its great strengths, as a narrative, the film falls apart in the third act as its earlier failings in developing the supporting characters result in characters behaving in ways that are solely dictated by the needs of the plot. I am primarily referring to Gwen, who initially serves as little more than a figure for Talbot to lust after. This would be fine given that Talbot is the protagonist and that it is his psychology that is under examination if the third act didn’t honestly expect the viewer to believe that some form of love had developed between Gwen and Talbot. Gwen’s sudden turn to wanting to leave with Talbot when he runs away has no basis in the events that come earlier in the film, and smacks of the filmmakers having painted themselves into a corner. As wonderfully complex as the ending is, the manner in which it reaches this conclusion distracts the viewer from the meat of what is going on in the film.

Another problem plaguing the film is the sledgehammer to the head approach to explaining werewolf lore and foreshadowing of events. The poem recited by Gwen about men becoming werewolves is fine the first time, but by the third repetition in ten minutes time, it feels like over kill and a lack of trust on the part of the filmmakers towards the audience. This becomes most evident in the various speeches given by characters that sound like endless exposition rather than dialogue. In a seventy minute long film, it is too much repetition and explanation when the film really needs to begin to move forward. The end result is a film that, oddly enough for being about emotion and the breaking through of base animalistic traits, is stilted and reserved when it needs to be neither.

Yet I don’t want to take away from the end result either, for The Wolf Man is an understandable classic of the Universal Horror series, with more raw potential and ideas floating through it than either Frankenstein or Dracula. It is just that, unlike those films, the execution of The Wolf Man is not quite as flawless. As such, The Wolf Man remains a film that I oddly enough do not mind being remade, despite its classic status. There is an opportunity to make a film that, much like John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)and David Cronenberg’s The Fly (1986), is every bit the better film than the already excellent original. With any luck, Joe Johnson and Benicio Del Toro will have pulled this off.

New Month, New Updates!

Hey Everyone!

So, we are one month into a new year. Hopefully, everyone is doing fine and things are looking up for the rest of the year. Or the next few months at the very least.

I have two new reviews in the works, one of which will be up on Thursday, possibly Friday depending on how the responsibilities of real life go. I won't say what the films are, so as not to dissapoint anyone if one or the other review goes up instead.

I would also like to take this moment to thank everyone for reading this blog, especially when there are better designed, flashier sites out there. It means much to me to see people actually take an interest in the things I have been writing, even if you disagree (in some cases, especially if you disagree!).

So see you later this week!