The Normal World: The Theatrical Report

[nopersonality]

Can You Feel Me Now?


Vibrations
(1995 / director: Michael Paseornek)

Now, I'm no kind of expert when it comes to techno. Let alone techno from 1993-1994 (when this movie was written and filmed) when I was mostly rocking audio cassettes of The Animaniacs and, occasionally, borrowing ZZTop CD's from my parents. But I do know when I'm being hosed. And, by God, I know what a rock band is supposed to sound like (yes, even at the end of grunge and beginning of alternative). This film begins on the premise that a young and... "incredibly talented" rock musician in a band that is... "on the fast track" to "stardom" tragically loses everything after being attacked by a gang of drunken yahoos (half-hillbilly, half-city creep... think loose-fitting jeans and goatee, 20-something, hanging around bars). And if you are ever unfortunate enough to stumble across this movie, you won't believe any of that. Our protagonist is clearly an athlete / model, his... "band" sounds like the fart patterns of a Rush or Styx, and the thugs he accidentally runs into are about as convincing a pack of wild, out-of-control drunks as Dick Cheney is a nice guy. And... oh, God... that's when the movie shifts into... : good-guy-hits-rock-bottom-and-has-to-go-on-soul-searching-mission-to-find-a-new-calling. But, not before it becomes: guy-spirals-into-alcoholism-after-tragedy-strikes-and-has-to-come-to-terms-with-his-addiction.

Yes, all the awful cliches are present and accounted for: recovery-after-loss-of-[fill in the blank] (in this case, a machine one of the drunks was playing around with cuts off his hands) but-he-can't-adjust-to-it, people-he-meets-are-freaked-out-by-his-deformity, sending-him-into-a-fit-of-rage, which-makes-him-run-away, and become-a-dirty-homeless-bum-living-in-a-cardboard-box-who-is-the-target-of-prejudice-by-anyone-with-a-job. But then-he-meets-kind-and-caring-young-woman-who-gets-him-back-on-his-feet, and since she looks like (and is) Christina Applegate, they-fall-in-love but... oh, no: he-has-an-old-girlfriend-who-comes-between-them-due-to-a-misunderstanding. Okay, that one veers off into being slightly different than the norm but its' resolution couldn't be more braindead and the love plot (not to mention... her character's entire sexlife) couldn't be more unbelievable and forced. Oh, and her last boyfriend was a co-worker and an overly chatty, constantly negative, patronizing asshole to her soft-spoken, mellow, upbeat new-age hipster. He's also more than 15 years older than her. There isn't a single conflict here that you won't see coming from a mile away or haven't seen a million times before and it's all so ridiculous that you'll either squirm (like I did) or bash your head repeatedly against the nearest wall.

But that's only when the movie can be bothered to try and drum up a little conflict. The theme of the movie is discovery. It's trying to expose us to the underground world of positive, free-spirited, uplifting, life-affirming techno music. As opposed to the heavy hitting, harder edged artists who would become the mainstream stars of the genre such as Prodigy, The Chemical Brothers, and The Crystal Method. Techno-lite. But it's not so much lite as it is painfully outdated (even in the 90's, I imagine), poorly produced, and not the slightest bit effective - in the short 2:30 minute slots the movie typically offers it to us in (and, since I was SCREAMING in my head for it to stop I'm convinced, that's the only mercy this movie shows us) - at getting us into its' "vibe." So, technically, most of the movie is a void of details and packed with lousy filler how-to on becoming a cult music phenomenon: wear a crappy Robocop-knockoff outfit and play electronic elevator-music in front of an audience of zombies. Even if the music weren't so bad, the movie's message is completely ineffective because its' stardom fantasy couldn't be more cheap or uninventive. The "cheering" crowds look more stoned than adoring (hell- even Applegate looks wasted most of the time and her friends are all pathetically lame stereotypes), there isn't a single relationship here that feels loving or even friendly, and the "great" moment of "revenge" / "redemption" (reading from the tagline) that caps this utter disaster all comes down to - in surely the film's best vie for a "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" moment - someone nodding their head.

[nopersonality]

The Butt of Every Joke


Spaceballs
(1987 / director: Mel Brooks)

★★

Ever wondered what happened to all the reject jokes from The Naked Gun? Look no further than Mel Brooks' 1987 mammoth-sized Star Wars slash Star Trek slash Planet of the Apes slash Alien slash Indiana Jones slash... The Wizard of Oz(?) parody, Spaceballs.

The pacing is fast enough and it gets ever slowly better as it goes along. But, here's the real joke: it's just not funny. As a matter of fact, far too often- it's downright freaking gross! The sight of John Candy caked in pasty fur and white-paint face makeup, made to look like a giant dog-man is too ugly to look at and expect to keep your last meal down. But, if you make it through that without hurling, Pizza the Hut - with his auto-inflating condom-esque bubbles, rivers of "cheese" (you hope) spittle, and face (trust me, people: it's traumatizing enough just to insist your fast food talks back to you) - will have you launching your lunch like you just injested a gallon of ipecac. This is just one giant bad taste movie, dedicated mostly to cock and ball references. One or two is fine. One or two dozen is pushing it. To the point where the film, rather than trying to ease uptight viewers by poking their insecurities, is practically mocking men for having what it finds to be silly genitalia. From "bearded ladies" whose voices have been altered in dubbing to cross-eyed retards shot in extreme closeup (like many things are in the front half of the movie; back the goddamn camera up, guys!) to pre-Ghostbusters 2 slime-y jam squeezing out of orifices that we shouldn't even be aware of- it's ultra-literal humor that couldn't score an honest laugh from someone who isn't already high or drunk.

Add to that the fact that casting isn't even that great. Bill Pullman may have beautiful hair and (as you can see above) a cute little ass but he's poison for comedy. His angry rants feel like bored throat-clearings, he has no range, and he's about as romantic as... well, let's put in this way: Bobcat Goldthwait was a more believable love interest in Police Academy 4. Speaking of that franchise, "sound effects guy" Michael Winslow has a kind-of cameo. Where he can't pull off any of the dialogue. At all. Comedy vet Joan Rivers plays a robot. And with her typically acid-tongued, bile-fueled stand-up routines, you'll be amazed how little you even notice her golden clone is onscreen. George Wyner might as well be similarly invisible. J(i)m J. Bullock probably didn't start a tradition of gays playing wigged Princes (though Rupert Everett was called on to fill the bill in Shrek 2), but, like in Full Moon High, he proves that he's a hard personality to catch onscreen- so they make him into a drug (telegraphing the wicked Beetlejuice joke by a year). Mel Brooks overacts but somehow makes it through. The same can't be said for Daphne Zuniga. She was terrible in The Initiation and she's terrible here. Really terrible! I suggest covering your ears whenever you see her begin to open her mouth. That just leaves John Candy - whose makeup acts for him (poorly) - and Rick Moranis, who fares the best. By far. He nearly gets a laugh during his "I can't believe you fell for that!" routine. I almost fell for it.

And, finally, the scene that grossed / scared the royal HELL out of me as a kid... is actually surprisingly cute 20 years later: John Hurt - the famous chest burster victim from 1979's immortal Alien - gives stomach-birth to a Michigan J. Frog-esque critter with glowing red eyes who gives us some "Hello, My Baby" and hotfoots it offscreen.

[nopersonality]

The Saddest Sack


A Boy Named Charlie Brown
(1969 / director: Bill Melendez)

★★★

There are many sad and tragic moments in the lexicon of childhood cinematic nostalgia. And, looking back, the Peanuts films (and half-films which debuted in 1965 with the first installments of the holiday trilogy, making it possible for this and at least 3 sequels to be made) are likely to fall on the upbeat side of the scale. However, and this is truly a credit to a comic series featuring the quirky goings-on among a bunch of (I'm guessing 5-7 year old) kids trying to act like adults, I don't remember a single one not having at least one key moment of intense self-examination. In Snoopy, Come Home (which I remember being easily the best), it was Charlie Brown's song about trying to say goodbye to his beloved pet Snoopy. Poignantly sung the night (or several nights) after the dog had already left him (which wasn't easy for Snoopy to do either), the scene is one of the most heart-breaking, tear-jerking, deeply depressing scenes in the history of family films. And, of course, someone more concerned with the emotional reactions of children to film would be apt to find this scene too much for them to take. But when you want to find a family film that actually understands what you're going through, a scene like this is essential viewing because it's profoundly real instead of idealistic.

The same is not exactly true of A Boy Named Charlie Brown. The last thing it is is idealistic but it sure isn't real either. Boy is comically exaggerated but nonetheless pays attention, in small moments, to what the ultimate boy who can't seem to do anything right is thinking and feeling as he goes about his day- trying to find a reason to get up in the morning. Someone nudges him into trying out for the school spelling bee and he discovers there is something he's good at. But, since this is Charlie Brown's first movie, things don't end well for him. This is a very true life statement, saying that you have to work your hardest to win and that even then you're not guaranteed anything. It's not the happiest sentiment to have left when a movie is over but it's the kind of thing you can look at and know the filmmakers understand. It's a dramatically enhanced realistic statement that applies to everyone, and it's a good thing to have in a movie that begins flawed. As Boy goes on, it ditches the very annoying kids' songs (especially the downright painful "Failure Face" and the shrill and messy "Champion Charlie Brown") and gets to some beautifully artsy moments with Snoopy and Schroeder that almost come close to matching Disney's finest work. But the first half of the movie is saddled with some very unfortunate stereotypes of girl characters who are made into judgmental and wholly unlikable harpies. Even Lucy, who I always found to be rather diva in my childhood. So much so, my mother actually named one of our pet cats after her. Proof right there that Gaga knows whereof she speaks.

The film is challenging in several ways, and maybe more than it should have been. When I rewatched it for the holidays last year, I found myself not liking the film at all. Lucy is loud even before she does her trademark A Charlie Brown Christmas scream, forcing Charlie to scream back at her (his tyrade during the routine "she's got the football, don't trust her" scene is practically ear-shattering), the baseball scenes have no life to them (I assume Peppermint Patty and Marcie sparked these up when they finally joined the Peanuts crew), and the spelling bee prep scenes take on the tone of an educational special (which the likes of Animaniacs often lashed out against). In fact, the underlying message of the film seemed to be that everyone was better off without Charlie Brown around. Yes, they cheered for him- some of them genuinely. But everyone hated losing the baseball games and the first time he wasn't on the team, they won. Linus said Charlie's failure at the spelling bee wasn't the end of the world. But when Charlie looks around to see Linus is right and everyone else is enjoying life as usual, he's looking at them after the high of winning the baseball game. Hardly what I'd call a comforting thought to close the movie on. Being realistic however, Charlie Brown still manages to succeed in the story. In fact, he comes in 2nd place at the national 2nd grade spelling bee. He almost won! Just think how all the other kids must have felt when they lost too. In a situation like that, there can only be one official winner. But I would say all of Charlie's trying paid off. He got pretty darn far, if I do say so.

[nopersonality]

Disturbing Behavior


Snoopy, Come Home
(1972 / director: Bill Melendez)

★★★

I was rather set to tell you all this sequel to A Boy Named Charlie Brown really was, as I predicted in that review, a clear and monumental improvement. Well... rediscovery is the nature of cinematic knowledge. And, upon re-watching this film a couple days ago, I discovered that Snoopy, Come Home is at best only a marginal step up. In fact, it may even be a step down. It's one of those movies that works better in your memory. It's sadder, smarter, funnier, and a terrific nostalgic experience when looked back upon not from your home theater, but from what you can recall having seen the film years ago. However, if you were to turn the movie on, you would see a truly sadistic scene of child and animal abuse... in the same exchange. Without any form of communication, Snoopy steals Linus's blanket because he wants to sulk and act like a baby. In dog years, Snoopy is more mature than Linus. And though we'd assume they both have the right to act like a baby, Snoopy basically picks a fight with Linus which ends with a shocking outburst of violence. It starts cartoonishly enough with nose pulling and blowing hard in ears but soon they're both crying and screaming as erect-walking Snoopy kicks Linus in the legs so hard that he falls to the ground in howls of agony so loud and shrill... Well, see for yourself:

That's just not right for a film whose characters are all very small children and their pets. I agree that it's true to life and that children do in fact treat each other that cruelly. But entertainment should not be this visceral in content featuring children meant to be viewed by children. Consider also that the clip is scored to "exciting" music rather than a cue that sounds as horrified as I was watching it. Children think. And who wants children thinking about this? The only way to laugh and/or play this intense scene off is to say it was a "silly" fight and Snoopy was mean. Snoopy, the film's star. Oh, I know; the 70's, right? A time when things weren't as politically correct. Speaking of silly fights, this scene is followed up by another fight which Snoopy gets in with Lucy- but she's only too happy to start throwing punches (man don't ask me how Peppermint Patty got to be the lesbian in everyone's fantasies - must be the voice - because Lucy is way more butch). All you can do is try to marvel at the animation. I instead marveled at the clock, watching my time fly away from me- never to be gotten back or made up for. One of the big problems with the movie is that the music should have gotten a lot better. In a way, it did- since the filmmakers hired Disney's The Sherman Brothers (Mary Poppins, Winnie the Pooh, The Jungle Book) to do it. But there's something they forgot about: the characters in the movie are all children. So, it was either have them all sing poorly or cut their losses by half and fill this half-void with a chorus. They don't do any better. Neither does the guy who almost condescendingly sings the token "Groovy" song (Snoopy and Woodstock's buddy theme).

Though, disappointments aside, the crux of the story is such a universally elemental and understood one - the (symbolic) loss of a childhood pet - that it does touch the most important base. It's kind of impossible not to relate to (unless you never owned a pet that ran away, became lost, was given away, or died). And even though Snoopy is a hard character here to love and even though the music isn't as great as it should be, we're really happy to see him return- knowing that Charlie Brown and Woodstock won't be so sad anymore (because they're like us?). Also - given that Snoopy, Charlie Brown, and Lucy are surprisingly unlikable in the movie - it's great to see Woodstock and Peppermint Patty (perhaps named so because there was a different girl character named Patty in A Boy Named Charlie Brown and the Great Pumpkin special) not just make it into a movie but become pretty much its' best characters. Lila never stood a chance seeing as how she became such a drag, even Snoopy didn't want to stay with her (this scene is strangely on the edge of "WtF?" until, after seeing Snoopy react with disgust over the fact that she also has a pet cat, he shakes the cat's paw goodbye / good luck too). I'm not sure she has a name, but the pet-abusing little girl (and her song: "Fundamental Friend Dependability") fare better. Last, and certainly not to any degree least, the classic Peanuts watercolor backgrounds are as usual breathtaking. The camera sometimes gets a little overindulgent but the animation nonetheless makes an impact. The film's best scene, not the least bit shockingly, takes place at a carnival.

[nopersonality]

Dog New Tricks


Bingo
(1991 / director: Matthew Robbins)

★★

Welcome, denizens of the Steve Pulaski / Steve the Movie Man message board, to what is officially the single most fucked-up movie I may have ever pulled for review. Meet the Feebles? Everyone expected that thing to be sick. The House of the Devil? After 5 minutes of that, you know there are no surprises left. Child's Play 2 and 3? Talking dolls are NORMAL compared to what you will behold during the running time of this film. (You may be asking yourself) why am I comparing this not-exactly-beloved 1991 family dog comedy to horror, torture, and shock films? Is it that bad? ...No. It's actually not. It simply remains so bizarre in so many different ways and to so many different degrees that it warps and wraps and waddles around in a circle of bad that spins to weird that spins back to bad that spins back to weird that spins... to insightful, funny, intriguing, or just plain good. Think of it as a road trip in the family car with several different drivers taking turns at the wheel: David Lynch, Charles Manson, Norman Rockwell's Hollywood-in-the-90's equivalent, and June Cleaver.

This movie is about as wholesome as Andrew Dice Clay humping Howard Stern while "Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog" narrates it. That's to say it definitely has a lot of very dirty things on its' mind. Take for example the scene where the dog's best friend, a tweenaged little boy, wakes from a nightmare to find his mother standing at his door dressed in sexy lingerie. O-KAY ; time for therapy!! Oh... but you haven't heard anything yet! The dog goes to court, is called upon to testify UNDER OATH(!), and is badgered by the prosecution into feeling guilty for something (abandoning the kid? I actually don't remember). This looks suspicious to the judge, so, he is sent to jail. You heard that correctly. The dog is sent to jail in the same ward as all the serious offenders. You would think that it's enough that he's hooted and hollered at through the bars as he shame-walks to his cell. After all, this is something kids are used to seeing in any movie featuring a prison scene. Of course, if you're a little older you probably know what said hoots and hollers are meant to symbolize. But no- the movie actually goes further: after being placed in his cell which is made to look completely empty and hopping up into the lower bunk bed to lie down in, out of nowhere pops the head of this creepy guy acting in full out creeper mode who says: "this looks like my lucky day!" In case you didn't catch the inference, that's a bestiality joke. Is it clever? I don't know. Fact is- I don't want to think about it. Nor do I really want to know what's up with the boy's sicko family. They play football together. Sounds innocent? They play it indoors. In the bedroom. Still not screwed up enough for you? Well, try this on for size: the father plays in his underwear, the mother dresses like a groupie cheerleader while staring intensely at and huffing deep-voiced crass lines directly into her (approximately) 11-year old son's face while his brother is firmly grafted to his butt and counting.

Now... after reading that... could you honestly believe that you still haven't heard anything yet?!?! That's right, I've been saving the most devastating sicker for last. But, before we get to that, let's talk about the cutesy parts: Bingo gets both drunk and laid in one scene after carrying a champagne gift basket to the doggie door of a cute little cocker spaniel. They walk to her doghouse and we - of course - don't follow them in or hear "Let's Get It On" blasted on the soundtrack (thanks for small favors, huh?). But the next morning, the empty bottle falls out the door. Bingo is mostly a road trip movie, so we meet a few additional characters who promptly disappear afterward. One being a motorcycle cop who actually gives Bingo a citation for walking drunk in traffic. Later we meet a husband and wife and their two little blonde twin daughtes: they all wear black thick-rimmed nerd glasses. Even the kids. Since the boy is torn away from the dog because the family are douches, he decides to leave a calling card in hopes Bingo will track him down. He pisses on trees, poles, any object near the road that will tell the dog where he's been. This, however, we're not so lucky to have shielded from us. Or left seen without commentary. The family, as I mentioned being douches, have to go into graphic detail discussing their son's urinary problems. A lot less cutesy is a scene early on where we're given a flashback into Bingo's puppyhood showing us the tragic death of his mother (or was it father?). Dead dog lays on floor surrounded by fire as firemen desperately scramble to rescue animals in cages while the building - a pet store - is set ablaze. This is followed by the "funny" image of the dead parent dog immortalized in statue form and sad puppy Bingo mourning its' death.

Now... are you finally ready for this movie's ultimate transgressional cinematic sin? Can you already feel it coming? We've had general perversion, bestiality, cute animal hook-ups, tragic death, sick family relatons, untold unsavory references to body parts on children, and in one charmless scene: Bingo's previous owners both try to shoot him to death which a shotgun. What else is left? The film brings us to a roadstop eaterie that uses ACTUAL SLAUGHTERED DOGS to make "hot dogs." I fucking kid you not, this movie has a scene where you see sad dogs in cages being corraled by a man who the story suggests (without any subtlety) kills, CHOPS up, cooks them, and feeds them to unsuspecting diners. Yeah... this just crossed the line from family film into EXPLOITATION.

Bingo is a wonder dog. You know: he's so smart that he not only can and knows how to build his own tent in the woods to stay in (and I'm not saying he just made a makeshift tent out of things IN the woods- he actually has a clotheswire rope and tent cover just there at his ready) but he also knows everything about CPR / resuscitating potential-drowning victims and has the physical strength to strip a grown boy completely naked and dry his clothes. Yes, that's the kind of movie you're getting in for. It's moments like those or the oh-so-predictable shots of the dog skateboarding or playing video games side-by-side with his human that make you believe the movie has no clue what it's doing. It just seems to toss a bunch of random, usually shocking or stakes-upping, scenes together almost none of them being cute or heart-warming unless you not only had a pet dog that you viewed as a hero but was also this exact same breed. That being said, it takes quite awhile, but somewhere around mid-way through you realize the movie actually does know what it's doing. It's scary but the movie is trying to be a surrealist, goofball, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink comedy. Under the guise of family filmmaking, and after it's done all the stuff you'd expect to see in a Beethoven type film, it then really gets wacked. To say the least, mirage sequences are not typical fodder for this type of film. Nor is the relationship we see the two kidnappers have with each other. There's actually a very weird conflict and resolution that comes with their different personalities and philosophies. One is very technical and sweet-hearted, the other one claims he's a visionary and is of course quite mean. They both get mean after awhile but one of them (Wayne's World's Kurt Fuller) begins to feel so pushed around by the other that he takes the worst possible time in their plan to try and liberate himself from the mean guy's tyranny.

One word is the key here: Americana. Think: Pee Wee's Big Adventure meets the oddest criticism of product placement and mass marketing you can think of. No one is allowed to mention his movie and somehow forget that the boy's family live in a house that is entirely painted and furnished according to whatever football team his father plays for. This is, as you can imagine with this film, taken to the farthest extreme possible. To the point where you have to assume the movie finds it sickening. And which you can only give the movie credit for. And David Rasche and Cindy Williams are kind of funny as Chuckie's (*pause for laughter*) parents. The movie's bad-touch outrageousness is only matched with its' freaky sense of inventiveness and hatred of routine-slavery. Animal cruelty nihilism aside, the movie truly doesn't try to make the dog hip or trendy (ala- Gordy). Similar tricks and manipulations are kept at a minimum. (Adding personality-grumbling? Yeah, like it really worked for Mildred's kitten in The Worst Witch). But, Babe this is not. (Yes, I know that movie was about a pig, but... it's still better than just about any other dog or cat movie I can recall ever seeing.) Bingo has a lot going on in it but, even for a crazy-ass freakfest, it's uneven.

[Deleted]

What It Feels Like for a Girl


Mortal Passions
(1989 / director: Andrew Lane)

½★

Luca Bercovici (director of Ghoulies, The Granny, and Rockula) gets to be an actor in this abysmal "life sucks and everyone wants to use you" erotic / bagful-of-money plot-to-kill thriller. Which I only watched because I'm a huge fan of Zach Galligan (Gremlins, Waxwork) and aim to see all the movies he's got on Netflix. It also helped in roping me in that this also has Michael Bowen from Valley Girl. Zach's a jerk husband playing cool (not what you're thinking) to his golddigging wife because he's wealthy but he's not telling her where the money is. Or that he even has any money which isn't tied up in his property. Since she thinks they're broke, she gets a job waiting tables in a "seedy bar" wearing a Playboy-esque leatherette bunny type costume while he fixes up the house all day. But he finally reveals he has hundreds of thousands of bucks stashed in a safety deposit when his scummy brother shows up, sees what a bad relationship they have and starts slapping her around. Scummy finds out she's having an affair and kills Luca, she seduces him, he takes "the bait," and he elbows her in the breasts after likely thinking to himself: "Damn! Fell for it again!" (They have a history.) Now there's a body to dispose of and even though he killed the guy, all the blame somehow falls on her for being a slut. This drives her to become all desperate for his approval and she tells him she loves him, not her husband. He's so overcome with emotion that he grabs her by the throat and throws her around the room. Yes, you could literally sub-title this movie: She's a Crash Test Dummy.

Oh, and, did I mention she and her husband are in therapy? As if this movie weren't profoundly screwed up enough, David Warner (The Omen, Scream 2) plays a completely clueless shrink who is "schooled" in his own profession by rich husband (in a scene right out of Straight Talk, the Dolly Parton movie) when he finds out slut-wife is cheating on him. This is somehow significant because the Shrink tries to convince Rich Husband that Slut Wife is totally being faithful. Does this mean there's a plot and he's involved? No, apparently- he's just an idiot. So, not only is this movie saying women are cheap whores but psychology is horsecrap. Did Shrink stop to think she might be lying? Um, he did go to school to learn about human behavior, I think he would have considered that was a possibility. Well, a real therapist would. This mistake is compounded upon later when Shrink decides to make things right... by calling Slut Wife in for an emergency session where he makes it clear he doesn't like being lied to. By shouting things like "don't you dare lie to me" and "I won't let you use me just like you used them" - because, of course, she tries to seduce him too. What the HELL is this? It started out as a movie about how money makes everyone crazy. Now, suddenly, it's an "us Men gotta stick together if we wanna defeat the evil, scheming Woman" bro's-before-ho's diatribe?!

My "watch instead" recommendation this time goes to Straight Talk. Granted it's not a thriller and doesn't have any murders or duffel bags stuffed with moola, but it does have a few things to say about psychology, money, and manipulation by people. Credit where its' due, at least that movie bothered to draw a distinction between good psychology and bad. Smart behavior and dumb. Right and wrong. This movie pretends it deftly blurs the line. Instead, it's just a shitty free-for-all of "sleaze" cliches (and I usually watch these kinds of movies because their idea of taking the gritty sleaze of the early 80's into posh Californian houses and swanky hotels, etc, is often hysterically cheesy). Making Reese Witherspoon's line in Freeway about movies and TV glorifying beating up women all the more spot on because movies like this serve as proof that she (and the screenwriter of that film) were right. I give it a half-star however because the guys are hot and there's a lot of them on display (hey, they clearly wanted to sell half this movie based on its' sex appeal and, so, it should be judged accordingly). And, for awhile, they throw in another almost interesting female character to provide a constrast to Slutty Wife. Of course, at the end, even though she hasn't done anything wrong she's reduced to a desperate begger forced to eat crow because she expected Rich Husband (who is clearly a douche) to split his blood money. But before that, she was at the very least a sympathetic character. Unlike the other members of the movie's Sex Triangle of Assholery.

[Deleted]

Boys Will Be Boys


Final Impact
(1992 / directors: Joseph Merhi & Stephen Smoke)

½★

I would turn this theme into an entire review series if I had a few more kickboxing movies at my disposal. Why do I have such a thing for boxing movies, considering how little there really is to say about the pathetic male pride connection that fuels these ridiculous things? Because, as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy's Carson Kressley so eloquently put it: "boxers are hot" and "not the underwear." But place these guys in another profession (take off the gloves) and suddenly the "drama" loses its' sexy exhibisitionist leer. Honestly, there's really nothing that makes Final Impact - a movie about a studly ex-champion kickboxer training a beefy prettyboy to crush the guy who destroyed his career - that different from a cop flick about an officer / detective who couldn't catch that one illusive criminal who tore apart his family. Except, here, everyone's single. Which lends itself to scenes where the ex-champion with a drinking problem tells his long-time girlfriend she can leave at any time. But... does she? Ha ha ha: no. Because in the cop movies (at least- all the ones I've seen), the wife never leaves him. It's kind of hard to pinpoint where this film's downfall lies since I'll be damned if nearly all of unbelievable hottie Michael Worth's scenes don't boast him at least shirtless. It could be that this cast can't act. But I'm not so sure, because even if you consider these "actors" chosen for their looks- it looks like the majority of the cast are stunt performers or friends of the directors. I'm just shallow enough to say that in my opinon the guys we see Worth fighting look like chumps and the woman playing Lorenzo Lamas's ex-wife could never land a guy like him or that she would ever leave him to be with a guy who looked like Jeff Langton. But I think movies like this encourage the spectator to be shallow since Langton in particular looks and acts like, as Absolutely Fabulous so eloquently put it, "a toilet-trained gorilla."

And, now I'm pretty much done talking about this. There's very little you can say when you've completely ruled out the ability to take a movie seriously. Other than to judge (read: trash) the actors and I don't consider anyone here actors beyond the 2 guys I already mentioned and the girlfriend. You'll recognize her from Halloween 4: The Return of the Michael Myers and she was terrible in that film as well. Cast because of her blonde hair and big boobs, which doesn't make it easier for me to respect that film. She apparently knew Lamas (why doesn't that surprise me?). The story is all cliche and no surprise. In fact, there is one scene of the main character trio gambling where they look like kids having fun (with Lorenzo Lamas in his 30's at the time, you can see where this is an achievement) and it dawns on you how young 30 really is and just where this film's flaw really lies: these performers can't fake real world experience. Which is why it's so important to cast your movie well.

[Deleted]

You Must Remember This


Starman
(1984 / director: John Carpenter)

★★★

This one's a tragic case for many reasons. It was never successful at the box office and that's kinda doomed it to several lackluster, no frills type releases on home video. I used to think it was criminal but most tragic of all, now that I've taken a pretty close look at it, I can see why not that many people really love it as much as I used to. Karen Allen is a remarkable, underrated actress. Or just underseen- even I don't know much she's ever been in. But what I've seen her in, she's never once failed to make me care about her. She's a walking, talking heart. Even the rare moment she slips doesn't mar her performance in the slightest. The dialogue doesn't give him much except for some moldy, unsculpted, lifeless cliches, but the same is nonetheless true for Charles Martin Smith as the bouncy extra terrestrial enthusiast trying to convince the military to do the right thing. The weakest link of the ones that matter is Jeff Bridges as the alien. I'm no acting buff, for certain, but I heard Carpenter himself claim that he had a lot of trouble from the cast on the movie. Maybe Bridges was capable of more in this role and between him and Carpenter, it all was lost in poor translation. But the effect of watching him onscreen is often purely taxing. His robot reflexes are too often not the slightest bit authentic and his actions seem tailored to the situation. And most of which border on pretentious. Such as a scene where he condescendingly copies Buck Flower's southern trucker-cook dialect in a conversation with him, yet he never does that with any other character. He'll copy an action like spitting or a hand gesture, but he never outright talks to a character in this same manner. In fact, this was something that even bothered me when he tried to sing. He recites the chorus of Rolling Stones' singing of "...Satisfaction" but in a radically different, softer tone. Wouldn't he instead be repeating it in the same tone they were singing it in? He claims he has a photographic / audiographic (etc) memory where he remembers everything his body senses and he picks and chooses how he's going to repeat what he hears. Yet, he basically recites Frank Sinatra's "...New York, New York" in the higher tone he sings in and "Satisfaction" in a lower tone because we know Karen Allen's character is in a more frenzied state at the time. We notice, he doesn't.

If you're wondering why I might bother to call out a moment like that anyway, it's because the movie's greatest impact is emotional and yet, this is done for I can assume humor and it's just annoying. That he mugs for the camera or "sings" these songs at all. I hate to say it because these movies aren't in any other way superior, but the famous "Johnny 5" character from the Short Circuit films had more charisma. Jeff Bridges? He has a stunningly hairless, muscularly perfect body. And at times, a somewhat appropriate amount of sensitivity. But even this leads to a WTF(?) moment on occasion. The biggest one being when she asks him what it's like on his planet and he tells her what about Earth is superior, what he'll miss when he leaves. At the last moment, he references sex in a way that feels entirely creepy / unappealing even though they've shared an intimate moment so life-changing for her that she says (at one point) she'd rather die than be split apart from him. I believed her and understood how she could say that. To its' credit, the movie goes a long way in helping us appreciate her grieving for her loss and what both of these relationships mean to her. That's not the problem. The problem is- he frequently slides back and forth between sincerely naive or sweet and suggestively deeply-intelligent or kinda creepy. Finally, the movie caves to a lot of completely boring interludes of sci-fi nonsense. Did we need to see a yucky bodily transformation sequence on top of the pretty cool effects with the hand-held magical orbs which are a lot more emotionally and visually dazzling than this gloppy physical mutation garbage? Let's say no, not merely because I prefer the more colorful glowing red, blue, and yellow lights from the orbs but also, because the character watching this display has recently gone through the emotionally traumatic experience of losing her husband and given that this imagery suggests It's Alive developments will follow (she walks in the room and reacts to seeing what looks like a balling infant)- why should the movie (even for a second) tell her: "No, you can't hold your man anymore. But here's this baby for you to watch after. Isn't that better somehow?"

The movie had to deal with the implication that the alien looking identically like her dead husband was a choice made to help give her closure, and the ending was the movie's way of at least giving her the chance to say goodbye whereas his actual death in the accident was a devastating and heart-ripping way of taking him away. I'm not sure it does. Exactly. But what it does provide is a very long, very detailed, and what felt to me to be a very rewarding emotional journey for her that is easy to get sucked into for several reasons. One being that the film, in typical Carpenter fashion, looks incredible. It's problematic when it's talky. But being as long as it is and being directed by someone as masterful at creating a potent cinematic experience as Carpenter is, there is a lot more than words being offered. This turns the movie on, full-blast, somewhere just around the half-way point. It's a movie that gets a lot better as it goes along, starting as a soulless and flashy "coming to Earth" starcraft sci-fi alien-guy-is-weird thing and patiently unfolding into a beautifully slow and breath-takingly picturesque adventure. Since it's also a travel movie, you get to see shots of America that will take you RIGHT out of your seat. The best being the gloriously wide and deep shot of the mountains of New Mexico from inside the back of a pickup truck that lasts for nearly 2 minutes. And since it's Carpenter, you get this and something akin to exposition / character development at the same time. There are equally larger than life shots of Las Vegas from as far back as you can get, skies and horizons in the Carolinas and at least one unnamed state, and the insides of various truck stops and a family owned "Indian" museum / gift shop that are just as big as a James Bond set. And just as that seems pretty impressive on its' own, there's Jack Nitzsche's, frequently repetitive but always, arresting and ethereal score. Which is indescribably beautiful even though it's cold, electronic, and synth-heavy. So, even though there's nothing new or interesting about the movie's "government wants to cut the alien open, not communicate with and learn from him," the woman and the alien's trip is still full of amazement. And even though the performances aren't always effective, they do each fall into place. Part of the movie is formula, and that part only slows the movie down to a point. Even the weakest element, Bridges, finds a groove. Surprisingly enough, his very soothing voice (and that body really doesn't hurt either) pulls him through most of the rough spots.

An imperfect movie. But one that has emotional cohesion despite its' mechanical episodicness.

[Deleted]

Some-thin Like a Phenomena


Escape to Witch Mountain
(1975 / director: John Hough)

★★½

Disney + the 1970's... what could honestly be trippier? The 70's was a very arty decade for Hollywood, in particular, and in the eyes of the movie-going public- Disney had lost its' luster since the end of the 60's. I say the end of the 60's because Walt's death didn't stop Disney. They still scored big hits. Financially, with The Jungle Book, and critically, with Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day- which of course won an Academy Award for animated short film. The 60's were dry but they were still a landmark decade for the studio. But their next move was very important. To keep the Disney name vital, they had to land one commercial hit. Sadly, they failed 3 times in a row with animated features in the next decade. But, they still managed to survive and produce a truly gluttonous amount of live-action features for film and television. Among the better remembered are the live-action / animated hybrids, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon, and the Witch Mountain franchise (which continued in the 90's with a remake and... something of a second sequel in the 00's, that abonimation no one likes to talk about starring The Rock). Ask anyone involved with the making of the movie and they'll tell you it was a hit. I'm inclined to agree and so is Disney- who have always held this film as high as their brand-name live-action staples Old Yeller and Pollyanna. But... they also give nearly the same lauding to critical bombs like That Darn Cat, a movie for which people only remember its' title and, if Disney is lucky, that it starred Hayley Mills of Parent Trap and a half dozen other 60's flicks (most of which Disney produced).

No, Disney have never been very picky about what kind of films they label classics. But Escape to Witch Mountain is definitely an interesting case. Director John Hough claims that Disney tacked him to this project after the execs sat through and were duly nerve-rattled by his 1973 horror film, The Legend of Hell House, and more-to-the-point, wanted him to give Escape a grittiness and a dark edge they felt was lacking from literally all of Disney's then-recent output (post-"Heffalumps and Woozles," I'm assuming, which definitely gave a few kids sleepless nights). What happens next? Well, of course, since it's Disney- the search begins for new child talent (Jodie Foster, who'd already done Freaky Friday for the studio, was offered the sister role and turned it down). But those children are made to act opposite horror heavies like Donald Pleasence (I know Halloween came 3 years later, but he was extremely infamous due to his roles in THX 1138 and as probably James Bond's most legendary / feared villain in You Only Live Twice) and Ray Milland (Roger Corman's The Premature Burial and X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes). Then, stir in a plot involving large, angry animals, a mammoth castle-sized dark mansion-estate, lots of low and wide angles, so many guns that you can't count, high-speed chases, and far too many shots of a little blonde girl saying "I'm scared" and... well; what do you get? A child's-play introduction to Disney of the early 80's, which really decided to push buttons with commercial disasters such as The Watcher in the Woods and Something Wicked This Way Comes. Both of which were actually labeled "horror" films by Disney, and neither cozily blamed on the later-formed Touchstone Pictures.

Since I haven't seen those movies but have recently rewatched Escape and its' first sequel, which I find superior, I'm inclined to believe Disney improved upon this budding formula afterward. Escape's legacy is really as a kid-friendly film with an air of mysticism about it and, of course, a reputation for promoting freedom through supernatural powers. Does it? Um... not exactly. It promotes fun and adventure, and very well- the film remains pretty impressive on the basis of providing entertainingly low-tech FX dazzlers. But as for the kids really getting out on their own and reacting to real life experience, they're shown to need help from adults at every turn when they're rendered unable to fend for themselves. First from would-be father figure Jason O'Day (played by Eddie Albert) and then later by their alien master-race who swoop down in spaceship transport to take them to a place where they are no longer unique. Yeah, when you thnk about it- it's really kind of a drag as a concept. Yet, through the decades, kids have related to the movie's opening section where magical Tony and Tia are forced to use their powers after circumstances turn bad in an orphanage-school. It's an adventure that delivers more often than not, but it remains significantly weighted down by several elements. One being that the kids mainly yearn for a family while most of the audience kinda wants to get out from under theirs (at least for 97 minutes). Another being how many scenes consist of Tony and Tia sitting down for minutes at a time talking methodically about the foundation for all their abilities. Leaving us feeling like we're being lectured. Bring your notepad.

Oh, and... witches??? There is actually a scene where a lynch mob are kicked into blood-thirsty action by a speech featuring the line: "I know what I saw, and I say there's only one explanation. Those two kids are witches!" If I'm not mistaken, this film wasn't just shot but also took place in California in the 1970's. The only witches people were acquainted with out there at this time were either masks for children's Halloween costumes or Looney Tunes characters. Or, of course, Disney's own Hazel. Featured in this classic short:

[Deleted]

Looking Glasses


Return from Witch Mountain
(1978 / director: John Hough)

★★★

Okay, confession time: I gave the first movie 2.5 stars out of loyalty. See, Disney live-action films are actually a stronger source of nostalgia for me than the animated films. If you can believe that (considering just how many articles I've devoted to Disney's animated work throughout the last few years). If truth be told, Roger Ebert's wishy-washy 2-star rating is more accurate. It was standard fare made from an anything-but-standard idea. The same is not true in the slightest for its' 3-years-later sequel, Return from Witch Mountain. The idea is shockingly similar - Tony helps another ill-fated Bad Guy only to be carted off to Ominous, Massive, Dark, Evil-Looking Castle and expected to use his powers for evil - but is only a drop in the ocean compared to how it unfolds. I'm not here to tell you this movie finally breaks through and becomes the spookshow Escape hinted at being. While it is, in fact, darker, it has just as much mood-lightening fodder as the first movie. But what's more interesting is how much the franchise matured as the children's ages shifted into their early teens. The movie begins with Tony and Tia on vacation as their alien legal-guardian Uncle drops the 13-ish kids off in L.A. to completely do their own thing. They are loosely instructed to follow their taxi to a hotel, neither make it there, and when they are picked up by Uncle's flying saucer at the end of the week- it appears no one from their planet bothered to check in on them or watch them from above. Finally, the kids have to actually fend for themselves (and they pretty much do).

This of course turns the movie into an utter circus of marvelous FX sequences, framed more fittingly into one large set-piece after another. So, already this sequel has a leg up on the original since that film was only really satisfying for its' scenes of the kids using their powers. Oh, and, all the gorgeous locations. But this sequel is no slouch, visually. It just, as it should, concerns itself more with a gritty look. A really gritty look (most of it takes place in factories, back alley streets, dilapidated, crusty houses, and stone basements). I suppose you could even call this an ugly movie. But, it's paced so fast and so sleekly that you won't really count that as a flaw. And, finally, it's a modern (for the 70's) mad scientist movie. Or, mad physicist. Or both. So, it's important that it really makes you feel each antagonist's desperation or madness. And... it does. More the former than the latter. Since this is Disney, they can't really end on a shot of a villain going insane. Actually, the dialogue at one point paints its' main villain as a terrorist. Hough and the producers repeat one of their rather brilliant ideas on the first movie and stock the villain roles with famous horror vets. Bette Davis (The Nanny, Dead Ringer, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane) and Christopher Lee (The Curse of Frankenstein and endless Dracula adaptations throughout the 50's and 60's). This is definitely a better day for the latter than the former. Poor Bette is just a wreck. She gets some good, campy lines but fails to deliver a single one with any of her usual commitment. She really should have retired before taking this role. As a matter of fact, Shelley Winters faired better in Pete's Dragon (bad musical numbers and all).

The silliest aspect of the movie is, obviously, its' depiction of street gangs. But you're not expected to take any of that seriously. This is best exemplified by the moment when, after Tia thanks them for being "good friends," one of the Earthquake Gang members remarks: "That's the trouble with us. We don't want to be good, we want to be bad!" These kids are the Apple Dumpling Gang of inner-city youths in gangs. Actually, if anyone really wanted to take issue with the movie failing to see what was a really serious issue- I wouldn't be bothered. But, really, didn't The Jeffersons already go after-school special enough on us (though of course that show takes place in New York)? Speaking of, actually, the end reeks a little of public service announcement by superhero characters for a "Stay in School" ad. Yet, you sort of have to admire it. At least, compare it to the first's ending- where all Jason O'Day gets is a cat with a pinched nerve and a mission to go hunting for more magic kids who will abandon him / break his heart. Both of the Witch Mountain movies had the benefit of jawdropping locations and cinematography, this one also comes with an extremely dated but guilty pleasure-ready score by Amityville Horror composer Lalo Schifrin. The most fun cues, naturally, are paired with the shenanigans of the Earthquake Gang. I hope the above doesn't really read as me not enjoying the first movie. I do, in a way. It tried to be misty and vague and magical in a way this sequel says "why bother?" to. But this sequel has a lot more meat to it. Whether you see it as substance or as grand, chaotic fun (like one big feature-length party, ala- Mary Poppins' tidy-up-the-nursery FX showcase). In the original film, it just so happens that more of the wires show. And I mean that in every sense of the phrasing.

[Deleted]

The Other Dummy?


Cherry 2000
(1988 / director: Steve De Jarnatt)

★★

It's never really a good sign when your lead star (in this case- Melanie Griffith of Working Girl fame) consides you to be the worst film she's ever made. Even worse than Milk Money, which of course has a lot of socio-political baggage since it's a film about a pre-teen boy who hires a prostitute to... bang his dad? (I clearly have never seen it.) But it's routine when you become a hot shot Hollywood celebrity to say your darkest moment was a horror or sci-fi flick. Especially if it was made on a lower budget and involves - *gasp* - post apocalyptic themes. I know how Griffith feels but I'll bet she has something worse than this on her rap sheet.

Cherry 2000 is most certainly a mess but it still has a lot going for it. Its' biggest crime is having little imagination (which it does) and no clue at all how to actually film something to completion. Several key scenes feel chopped in half, characters throw their internal workings at you like the food from a McDonalds' drive-thru, and a character will give the camera a speech about dying, be called to lunch to scarf some macaroni and cheese, and immediately be shot to death by the cook. Sounds funnier than it is. Which brings me to the film's constant genre-hopping. From comedy to drama to action in a manner I would describe as anything but seemless. The action fares the best, drama the worst (not shocking considering the film's crippled character development), and comedy somewhere in the middle. Mostly because you can't tell that it's really meant to be a funny movie until the end. By that point, you know you can't hate the movie for even its' worst grievances (the pretentiously "okay, now this is for-real" execution styled murders committed by Near Dark's Tim Thomerson, who is underused here) because it's completely thrown logic out the window so much the way a baby who's just learned to walk might take a phone and throw it in the bathtub. Then look at you, smiling, and have a gigglefit.

The film actually almost works. Especially considering it's a real interesting hybrid of 2 vastly inferior films- Mannequin and Dead End Drive-In. For the most part, it's so light and fast that you have only enough time to get surprisingly invested in the plight of the main character, ultra-dreamy David Andrews. The film ends with a half-assed "what was I thinking?" message about the virtues of real women vs Stepford Wives robots. But it starts as a surreal and captivatingly cheesy fantasy film with Andrews romancing his computer wife in their Back to the Future-istic house where she keeps a plate of food warm and fresh (presumably for hours) in what looks like a combo coffee maker and ice machine. And these are the best actors in the film. You can tell Griffith is trying but her style doesn't work with the film's blink-and-you'll-miss-it dystopian-ish road trip adventure. Since it feels like they're cutting everything in half, all the important establishing pieces to give her character believability are what end up in the rubbish. To compensate, the whole movie feels very sincere. Its' all heart and aspires to show us at every turn that it's wrong to use and manipulate people. The movie is simply too diverted to retain focus. Which is kind of a pity since it had the right music, plot elements, and enough visual punch in doses to be a quite good surreal action-fantasy. For now, stick with Ahnold's Total Recall or The Running Man. They're both much better than Dead End Drive-In.

[Deleted]

Let the Wrong One In


Smooth Talk
(1985 / director: Joyce Chopra)

★★½

Still can't figure this movie out. That happens with me and lots of movies but I feel there's some urgency to know what's going on here since some people have rightly accused this movie of trying to punish girls exploring their sexuality and immediately brand all innocent flirting as an invitation for rape and violence. Still not sure that's what the movie is trying to do but it's really on the border. The only scrap of courtesy we're thrown is that we technically never see her and the stalker, Arnold Friend, have sex. After (whatever happens) is over, she doesn't act as though she's been forced into having sex (as far as I can tell), his intense demeanor has changed, and she very powerfully tells him to never come back again. He doesn't. Far as I can tell. I'm really on the fence about this movie because there's something very big working in its' favor with me but I'll get to that as I close. The movie is extremely nasty and portrays "laidback" summers with this family as domestic hell- short of significant physical abuse. There's a lot of emotional abuse. The mother feels run-down by her husband and neglected by Laura Dern's character and she takes it out on her in a way that makes every mother I've ever met look like June Cleaver. I've met mothers who were manipulative and mothers who could be mean but this woman - Mary Kay Place - is a terrorist. Whether she has a reason for it or not, it's really hard to watch her and Laura Dern try to bond. Put a foot wrong with the daughter and it's no problem, make one mistake with the mother and she goes Norma Bates on you. This girl may act like a brat but she pays for every tiny little thing she does over and over and over again like she's on trial for breathing. This is bothersome because she's not just a thoughtless, careless, selfish bitch or a giggly moron. She's portrayed as very smart by the movie even if she does play around with people a lot. She doesn't deserve this.

As a movie, apart from what it all means, it's not fun (for the most part, again I'll get to that in closing). But it's well-filmed, edited, acted, and again- the characters and their relationships are handled intelligently even during their bouts of nastiness. Though, another thing I didn't care for was the soundtrack. Almost all songs were by James Taylor. Yeah... One of the plot synopses of the movie includes this tantalizer: "It's summer, a time of shimmering hypnotizing heat. Romantic daydreams and distracting desires, fueled by the persistent beat of rock music lead Connie to an uncompromising reality..." Um, yeah, the beat of that hip-shaking, debauched rock 'n roll devil James Taylor would turn any normal girl into a leather-clad slut. Or whatever they were thinking. I was thinking at certain moments that the film was a little more fair than it sometimes gets credit for. Not all critics claimed it was a simple-minded thriller about demonizing flirting and non-void-filling intimacy. At one point, one of the guys she flirts with charmingly offers to punch her in the face. And I of course overreacted, immediately thinking this guy's a jerk. But when they get alone and they start getting into it, he's not only extremely gentle, he also doesn't get the slightest bit angry or dark when she starts objecting and jumps out of the car. The camera lingers on his face long enough to see he's only disappointed. I was happy with this. I was a little less happy about the idea that - whatever she did with the first boy she was alone with (William Ragsdale of Fright Night, the ultimate embodiment of most of my high school crushes) - another guy she sees dates her one night, they go off alone, and she never hears from him again. Though in another later scene, she gets very blushy about the idea of him trying to find out more about her when one of her friends said a guy asked her questions about Dern. Another good example of where the film could be mistaken for pushing an agenda.

Lastly... there's the second half of the movie. Which is basically one long scene of him arriving at her house while she's home alone and trying to coerce her into getting in his car and going for a ride with him. The more she resists or plays around or keeps him (and the guy he brought along, sitting in the passenger seat) waiting, the more intense things get. I still can't decide whether he was up to no good all along or if he wasn't that bad but just spoke dangerously. The evidence leans heavily to: this guy is a manipulative, sleazy psychopath and she doesn't have the means at her disposal to defend herself if he forced his way into her house. Which he does anyway when he reminds her that their time is running out, but if he had had any designs on forcing her to get in his car through hostility... The movie won't deem to cross the line. Anymore than it does when he suggests that he'd burn her house down to get her to come out or when his friend in the passenger seat offers to cut the telephone wire outside the house. And then there's the extra fun of him saying he's asked every single one of her friends for personal details about her... But somewhere in all of this, I remain quisitive and skeptical that it was all cut and dry-he was a psycho. It's a very surreal situation, when you add everything up. For example- he not only claims to have asked everyone she knows everything about her, he also claims to be able to see what's going on with her family miles away. As in: exactly what they're doing at any given moment. Which would make him some kind of psychic. And she believes enough of it as did I. Also, except for his one line about the telephone, the friend in the passenger seat remains completely still and silent for the 35-40 minutes spent on Arnold getting Dern to get in his car. With a radio up to his ear. He just sits there and doesn't move. We learn absolutely nothing about him. And when Dern goes for a ride with Arnold, he stays at the house and... listens to the radio. Says nothing, barely moves.

This scene, even with minor controversy and unpleasent connotations, is nothing short of mesmerizing. A large part of that being how seductive Treat Williams is (however, this is the only role I've seen him in where I might describe him as an adonis- though the only meat we see is in his arms, I thought he was perfect). He plays almost as much of the long stalker scene silently selling his more tender features (and I'll be damned if what he was wearing didn't make him look perfect from all angles- I continue to mention this because he had quite a spare tire on Tales from the Crypt). And this scene wasn't just fascinating to watch unfold, but I found it entertaining. Since before it, I didn't think the movie was nearly compelling enough. If you can put yourself, even for a second, in her position- it's hard for me not to find this a really interesting fantasy. I mean, just short of offering her any kind of power in their dynamic, he couldn't have been more attractive. To someone as twisted as me. And the movie almost invites this kind of reaction since he acts like he's not real. She even says "nobody talks that way." He's not just trying to dazzle her with poetry, he's talking as though existing was about expressing love through soft sex. And again, can't press upon this enough: the movie does not tell us what happened. So, if he was trying to add her to like a list of girls and was a pedophile... how would we know? She starts to tell her sister what happened and pulls back. Not out of shame, as far as I can tell. Though, also, not because it was her fantasy come true. And that's horrible- what happened? If we're all tasked to interpret it our own way, I'm going with: he was an angel, he would have done anything you asked him to do on command, and if you or Dern had asked him to come back- he would have. It's pretty easy to walk away from the movie with a perspective like that, the movie is that vague with details. And that incredibly surreal. As far as I can tell.