Lying Movie Titles, Exhibit A

I said I'd do it so here it is.

1965

Director: Mario Bava

This film is the ultimate in style over substance.  There is very little story - a spaceship crew lands on a creepy alien planet and discovers that the crew of their sister ship has become alien-possessed zombies (why the hell it's called Planet of the *Vampires* is beyond me, there's nary a bloodsucker in sight... the original Italian title Terror In Space makes a whole lot more sense) - there is almost no characterization, it drags a bit and the dialogue is nothing to write home about.  But the sets!  And those costumes!  And the cool alien skeletons!  Sure, the actual special effects are hideously dated and sometimes laughable, but Planet of the Vampires is a visually striking film... Mario Bava was known for his use of color and his mastery of lighting and it shows in this movie. The creepy atmosphere and colorful sights will stay with you for a while...  it definitely did with the right people - you can see it's influence in Alien (writer Dan O'Bannon openly admitted to the influence of Bava's movie but director Ridley Scott has never owned up to it even though it's freaking obvious) and a lot of other later sci-fi movies.

I know that I haven't written much about this film, but as I have said it is because there isn't much to write about story or performance-wise.  This ain't some deep rumination on the human condition to be analyzed but a (sometimes) fun little space zombie movie to simply look at and appreciate for what it is.  In the end, I can safely recommend Planet of the Vampires - it's not a cinematic science fiction masterpiece but it's still better than Interstellar.

Burn!

It's the 60s so the spacesuits look like this.

It's the 60s so they're still putting effort into making alien
planet sets look *alien*.

It's the 60s and it's not Star Trek, so the spaceships are just
models sitting in front a backdrop...

...the spaceship control rooms are an ergonomic nightmare...

...and ray guns are butane torches.

"No, I am totally NOT a killer space zombie."

Hmm... I wonder...

...where Ridley Scott...

...got his ideas from.

"Let's watch this new movie, supposed to be good,
it's called Interstellar...."

"It's not my fault! She passed out after watching only 30 minutes!"
Okay, okay, this is the last time I'll hate on Interstellar.

Next Time: More Mario Madness




P.S. Interstellar sucks.

...Damn it!

Wow, I Am Actually Reviewing A New(ish) Movie

Today I watched Christopher Nolan's Interstellar for the first time: I saw the trailer last year and said "meh." It didn't look all that interesting and I figured it wasn't worth seeing in the theaters so I didn't, even after all the hype and rave reviews.  Well, my mom lent me the DVD and said, "you should see this" so I did and said...

..."meh."  Actually it was more "blah."  I didn't like it.  I didn't hate it either, I didn't have the same visceral reaction that I had to some of my most loathed movies like Armageddon, Die Another Day, Tommy or Gone With The Wind.  Just "blah." And maybe that's worse, because at least those turd burgers DID elicit a strong reaction to me, even if not a positive one.  Mostly I was just disappointed with Interstellar, even after I rejected all of the hype and didn't go in expecting the best thing ever.  I was at least expecting to be somewhat entertained or intellectually stimulated and the movie failed on both accounts.

I'm not going to take much time writing about this movie as it really doesn't deserve that much space. Matthew McConaughey annoyed me.  The rest of the actors disappointed me - even Michael Caine seemed to be phoning it in.  There are way to many Hollywood Theatrics for a supposedly hard sci-fi movie.  The abysmal score by Hans Zimmer is too loud and refuses to shut up.  The film is somehow overly pretentious and cutesy - one of the characters is even named "Murphy" after Murphy's Law (really).  Characters do things irrationally and out of the blue not to illustrate human fallibility or be realistic but to provide cheap Hollywood "Drama".  With all of the shouting and tears and glurgy music you can tell that this movie is trying to manipulate you emotionally, it's not subtle like, say, Conan The Barbarian (yeah, I just went there).

I do not have a degree in science but even I could smell BS on some of the "science" in this film - I doubt that entry into a black hole would result in what happens in this movie.  Even without the scientific factor, there are just way too many plot holes and stupid moments and stupid things that bring up way too many questions... why is a man who last piloted a plane 10 years ago *perfect* to fly a new spacecraft into another galaxy?  Why did the aliens (or whoever) who supposedly want to help humanity put a wormhole out by Saturn when it would have been waaaaaaay more helpful and expedient to put it closer to Earth - say, closer to Mars or the Moon?  For that matter what's up with the propulsion technology of the future?  They use a three-stage rocket to launch the spaceship from Earth and it takes this craft 2 years to reach said wormhole at Saturn (which is about how long it would take using today's technology) but their landers have Star Trek shuttlecraft anti-grav and propulsion technology and can land *and* take off on their own.  If they have sufficient AI to make sentient, wisecracking robots, why couldn't they just send advanced robot explorers out to this other galaxy instead of people who are fated to die (they try and explain away this one but it's bullshit)?  For that matter if the Earth is dying why don't the humans just immigrate to orbiting space colonies (oppa) Gundam-style?  You don't strictly need a planet to live, and they even show an O'Neill type cylinder at the end! Arrrrrgh!

Alright, as usual I spent way to much time ranting about this.  This is a movie I never want to see again.  I'm only providing one screenshot for this.  I had to watch another sci-fi movie, any other SF movie, to get the bad taste of this out of my brain.  I ended up watching Planet of the Vampires, which is actually a much better movie than Interstellar - and this is a 60s film that has Italian space zombies in leather gimp suits.  Hey, there's an idea - why don't I review Planet of the Vampires?

Next Time: Planet of the Vampires

Unmutual!

I couldn't stay away, but I won't be here long.  Too much personal stuff in my life, my slipping emotional sanity and the mind-numbing quest for an actual life mean that not only have I not written for this blog in a long time but that I won't be writing for it again ever come the near future; I am near done and we are approaching the end of line.  I truly mean it this time.  Cross my heart.

I didn't start up this blog again for the death of Leonard Nimoy, I didn't do it to commemorate Christopher Lee.  No, I am doing it today because today is American Patriotastic As Fuck Day, and as a Patriotastic American I feel like saying on this day celebrating the birth of "The Greatest Nation In The World":  It's a Sham.  Freedom is a myth.  You see, I have finished re-watching what is probably the Greatest Television Show Ever Made, and I had to come onto the internet, on this day, after a prolonged silence, to talk about it.  And it's British.  Ha.

1967-1968

Director: Basically Patrick McGoohan

This is a classic show.  If you haven't seen it, go watch it now.  Don't expect me to do a review in the classical sense and use it to decide whether you want to watch it, I'll just tell you right now.  Watch it now.  Now.

Now.

(17 hours later)

Okay, back?  Good.  Awesome, wasn't it?  And really fucking confusing too, I'll bet.  There's a lot of stuff in this show that makes you think, and makes you think about stuff that's not that pleasant.  Individuality vs the Community is only one facet.  I believe the overall conflict of the show is Freedom vs Control, or alternatively, Order vs Chaos... which ties into the Individual vs Society.  Of course Society stands for Order and Control... without control there would be no order, there would be chaos... and human beings cannot stand pure anarchy.  This is all Sociology 101, but the way The Prisoner star and creative force Patrick McGoohan handles it all is brilliant and nuanced.  From the tone and plot of the show you would expect The Prisoner (I refuse to refer to him as Number 6, after all HE IS NOT A NUMBER) to be the unabashed hero and the controllers of The Village to be absolute, unadulterated evil, but this is not always the case.  The Prisoner can sometimes be just as rigid and uncompromising in the name of the individual as the Village can be in enforcing Control -only near the end of the show does he stop flailing about in self-righteous rage and start to beat the Villagers at their own game. And while the antagonists do some pretty evil stuff in the course of the show it is made plain on a number of occasions that many of them are just as much prisoners as the main character.  You can actually sympathize with some of the Numbers Two (most notably Leo McKern's).

And in the end of course (literally) The Prisoner shows that you will never be free; if society is not trying to control and limit you then you yourself are.  The struggle is never over; we are doomed to conflict with ourselves and each other until the end of time... .. wait a minute, is this show British or German?

And that's why I say what McGoohan once said: freedom, or at least absolute freedom as imagined by most Americans, is a myth.  It has to be.  Or society would just fall apart.  In America you are only as free as you can afford to be.  Or as free as the powers-that-be will let you be.  Or as free as your family, friends, neighborhood or community lets you be.  The United States is no different.  Oh, don't get me wrong, I love living in the US.  As a (barely) middle-class American I enjoy a roof over my head and food whenever I need it (good, affordable medical care on the other hand....).  I am "free" to express my opinions about my government and not be jailed in a gulag somewhere but make no mistake... true political dissenters and undesirables are monitored covertly and often, and those deemed dangerous to the state (whether they are dangerous or not) are dealt with.  Scratch the surface of America's "free" exterior actually, and you'll find a surveillance and enforcement system that resembles a certain Village control room....

The United States (and other western countries) have done some very nefarious things to protect the community and its "freedom", many of them done during the decade The Prisoner was originally made.  Things that were just as nefarious as the "evil" Communist Soviet Union or third world brutal dictatorships (some of which we helped set up and/or maintain).  The East and West were not that different during the Cold War (something the show touches on).

So given the show's message and the state of the world it's all pretty depressing, right?  There is no hope.  Well, no.  The trick, and this is the beauty of McGoohan's message, is to despite all this never let them make you think of yourself as a number (which is difficult today, isn't it, with your Social Security Number, Driver's Licence Number, etc.).  Also, you have to *fight* for the rights you most want and cherish.  Don't let them take everything.  You should learn to compromise, but never just roll over and play dead.

All this coming from a Brit, no less.  Wait, actually, Patrick McGoohan was born and died in... America.


Go America!  Woo!

Happy Fourth.

I Like To Play With Things Awhile Before Annihilation

Today for the 4th Of July I want to review one of the most patriotic, pro-American films I have ever seen... a film that makes me proud to be an American... a film produced by Italians and directed by and starring a bunch of Brits (and a Swede).

1980

Director: Mike Hodges

I am not joking.

Flash Gordon is not only a cinematic masterpiece, it is one of the most pro-American foreign movies I have ever seen.  Seriously.

This film is not "so-bad-it's-good" - it is unabashedly good.  It accomplishes all it sets out to do, and more.  It is a big-screen comic-come-to-life, a theatrical space opera that provides close to two hours of solid entertainment.  And it has music by Queen!

And freaking Max von "I was in The Seventh Seal" Sydow as the villain.
Oh, along with Las Vegas Doctor Doom on the right there.

But what makes it so patriotically American in addition to so awesome, you ask?  Well, the answer is the character of Flash Gordon himself.


Now, as acted by Sam Jones (who is coincidentally the only American actor in the main cast), Flash is not that great of a character on the surface... a blond football quarterback who's wooden and not the sharpest knife in the drawer (although he does have his moments of cleverness - see the tree ritual scene), he is the sort of character that most viewers would assume is a foreign film's spoof of the All-American Boy.

"Durrr..."  Actually, Dale is kind of blank, too.

He doesn't defeat Ming the Merciless in a sword battle, doesn't personally lead an army in a climatic battle or come up with a scientific solution to save the Earth - in fact, in the end the Earth is saved randomly and for almost no reason at all ("You have saved your Earth.  Have a nice day.")... so what makes Flash Gordon a great character and a great American hero?

Simple.  Morals.

Okay, he *does* sort of impale Ming with a rocket ship too....

Flash Gordon and his friends Dale Arden and Dr. Zarkov come to Mongo to save the Earth and find that the planet is completely degenerate morally.  There is a brutal fascistic dictatorship run by a madman - the reason that no one overthrows Ming is that they are too busy squabbling and fighting amongst themselves... a policy that Ming actively encourages in his subjects.  If all of the racial groups of Mongo would just somehow unite, they could overthrow the Emperor.  However, they are as morally degenerate as Ming himself, and lack any real human virtues - indeed, Ming tells his daughter Aura that tears are a "sign of weakness."  There is no real feeling or joy on Mongo, only decadence and violence.

And this.  Yes, this is the type of movie that this is.

But the arrival of Flash (aaaaa-AHHHHHH!) changes that.  He is the first to stand up to Ming and show that he can be defied, if only for a few minutes at least (he is quickly subdued and executed although he does get better).  His defiance is a breath of fresh air, and inspires the people of Mongo to set aside their differences, defy the emperor Ming and rule the planet with truth and justice and the American way.  But they have to get morals first.  And Flash Gordon is the moral enabler.

It's fascinating that the three people that Flash influence are princes (and a princess - cannot forget the princess).

Princess Aura revives Flash after his execution because of her lust for him and is later punished for it, being brutally tortured at the hands of her father's lackeys (and with the approval of daddy himself!).  This makes Aura realize what others have suffered at the hands of her father and gives her a new-found feeling of empathy.  She has to learn this before she becomes queen at the end of the movie.

This also has the side effect of giving the
S&M minded in the audience a major boner.

Prince Barin is jealous and cold towards any that not of his race.  He is taught true compassion when Flash spares him after their fight in the Hawkmen's city.  Barin has to learn that true compassion is not felt just towards your friends but your enemies.  This makes it possible for him to become the rightful ruler at the end.

This *also* has the side effect of giving the S&M...
wait, come to think of it this movie definitely has a very kinky vibe to it.

Prince Vultan for all his blustering and shouting is actually a coward.  He hates Ming but is too frightened to rise against him.  Flash's tenacity ("Gordon's ALIVE?") and courage spur Vultan into finally taking the plunge ("diiiiiiive!") and uniting with Flash and the others to overthrow the tyrant of Mongo.  He is rewarded at the end by being named General of the Armies.

"DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!"

Flash is an unwavering moral force (Ming outright tells him that he has never seen his like before... right before offering to rule together with Flash.  Flash naturally refuses).  His effect on the moral characters of others is what really drives the film thematically - their redemption and the ultimate redemption of their world is what Flash Gordon is really all about.  See, the song during the titles isn't just hyperbole:  Flash IS the savior of the universe, he IS a miracle, he IS king of the impossible and he WILL save every one of us.  Queen laid it all out right at the start of the movie.  Wasn't that nice of them?

So to sum up: A blond "All-American" football player, travels to a foreign place in the throes of a brutal fascist dictatorship and inspires the people through his moral leadership and defiance of the ruling regime to unite and rise up against that regime and in the process saves his own home.  Sounds like American propaganda to me!  Also sounds like the British and Italians deep down really, really like us.

Also, they like phallic rockets - GOD, this movie is really kinky, innit?

Yes, I just overanalyzed Flash Gordon.

You're welcome.

Happy Fourth.

There Is No Comparison... Until Now

Today, no review but a quick rumination on a film I both re-watched and watched for the first time recently:

1979

Director: Robert Wise

It’s funny how your perception of something can change. I have always liked Star Trek: The Motion Picture, at least I thought I have. See, ever since I was a kid I have watched it either in the extended VHS cut or the DVD Director’s Cut… but until about a week ago I had never seen the original theatrical cut, since it hadn’t been available on home video until recently. I had always wondered about all the hate for the movie… yeah, sure, it is slow and things seem to be a bit muted compared to the original TV show

And yeah, okay, the costumes are horrible.

but there is a good science fiction story and some actual character development once you look past all the pretty special effects and music and such.

Well, after seeing the original theatrical cut I understand now how people back in 1979 would have been less than plussed with this film. The movie feels choppy and confusing, with sudden cuts and lots of stuff left out. I had read before about how the film was cut down for the original release but I was still surprised at how many scenes that I took for granted were *not* in the theatrical version. The biggest omission was the key moment with Spock weeping for V’Ger (“Logic and knowledge are not enough”).

*Manly Tears*

Leaving this scene out basically destroys his character arc for the movie – STTMP is partially about Spock’s journey to find himself and attain spiritual fulfillment, and leaving out this self-realization *really* hurts the film.

Watching the theatrical cut also got me to thinking about director’s cuts of movies in general. In 2000 Robert Wise was given a chance to go back and finish Star Trek the way he wanted to back in 1979. The results are pretty good. While there is some playing around with SFX for the sake of playing around (the tram station looks pretty but was it necessary), mostly he just tries to make things look like the original storyboards (Vulcan looks sooooo much better) and what things in general would have looked like had he had time to actually finish the movie.

He thus does not engage in the George Lucas wankery of making a movie from the seventies look like some unholy hybrid of that era and the modern day (“Hi, you are watching a movie from the SEVENTIES oh now WHACK! It’s 2003!”).

For the most part the director’s cut looks like a movie from 1979 (there are a few spots where the CGI is obvious). And that’s what a director’s cut *should* be, not an excuse to go back and keep fiddling with something that you were never satisfied with because you’re a compulsive perfectionist neurotic. GEORGE.

If this were a George Lucas movie there would be
robots and lizards in the background, or something.

The only beef I have is that the 1980s TV extended cut is not on DVD (it was only ever released on VHS). While it is bloated (they threw just about everything they had in there) and there is one scene with a glaring special effects failure (the set wasn’t finished so you see scaffolding and lights) it would still be cool to have it to view for reference on DVD or Blu-Ray (for all you people with money out there). Maybe a three or four disc Mega Ultimate Special Edition? So for all of you who saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture back in the day and hated it, I understand. Pick up the Director’s Cut on DVD (it isn’t out on Blu-Ray yet) and see what you missed out on in the theatre. For those of you who haven’t seen the original theatrical version, pick it up and watch it and understand why it inspired so much ire from fans – and why they hailed the sequel.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Ahhh, trying to get my shit together - it's been a lot of work and I still have a long way to go but I am on my way... anyways, I have missed this blog and now that summer is over I can have fun writing for it again.

So what new stuff did I watch over the summer?  Just some of the *cheesiest* stuff ever on Netflix!  That's right, I idled away my movie watchin' time in the hot months watching some really bad B-Movies, most of them by Roger Corman.

Without further ado here they are:

Not Of This Earth (1988) - This is a cheap Roger Corman-produced remake of a cheap 1950s Roger Corman movie.  The plot, about a vampiric alien sent to Earth to obtain human BLOOD, is inconsequential - I suspect that the real purpose for this film's existence is ex-porn starlet Tracy Lords, who stars as a nurse and of course gets topless in the course of what little there is of the story.  Got to get all the young males hot and horny!  Not Of This Earth is not really worth watching; it's dull, dull, dull and only exists as an excuse to see Tracy Lords in the buff (and personally she doesn't do much for me).

Galaxy Of Terror (1981) - This is less dull but is still baffling.  A spaceship goes on a rescue mission to a mysterious planet and it's crew members start getting slaughtered by their worst fears in some of the goriest (and sickest) ways possible.  Yes, this is the movie with the infamous "maggot rape" scene.  There are some interesting ideas here and the production (Corman outdid himself here) is pretty cool considering that the budget was under $1 Million, but Galaxy Of Terror just can't decide what it wants to be - is it a cheap grade B horror flick or a serious sci-fi film?  It tries to be both but doesn't really succeed.  Maybe with a better director it could have been a good film, as it is it's just an oddity.  But, hey, it does have Ray Walston, so that's cool!  Worth seeing once.

Forbidden World (1982) - This was actually a pretty decent Corman movie.  It's been accused of being an Alien rip-off, but aside from a few superficial items it's pretty much it's own thing, with a halfway clever story about a group of scientists on another planet creating a killer lifeform that (of course) tries to devour them all.  And it has a truckload of gratuitous female nudity, so there's that.  The dialogue is laughable, some of the situations are insane and sometimes it all makes no sense but Forbidden World is actually a pretty fun viewing - if you are in the mood for a movie with lots of gooey alien action and boobs, then I heartily recommend it.

Creature (1985) - Not a Roger Corman movie.  This one is sort of an Alien ripoff, but it's mildly entertaining.  Most of the actors aren't worth mentioning, except one - the great Klaus Kinski.  That's right, the insane but brilliant actor and subject of this site's own month-long Kinskifest is in this cheapo sci-fi horror flick and he's about the only reason to see it.  The FX are decent although the Creature itself is pretty lame looking.  The movie drags but is entertaining enough although I probably don't need to see it ever again.  If you are a fan of Kinski (like I am) you should probably see this once.

Well, that's it.  Four cheap horror movies available online to anyone with a Netflix account.  Now, if you'll excuse me I have to what, what's that oh my god it's ARRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Roses Are Red, Spacemen Are Blue

You know, I have done holiday posts for this blog, but I’ve never done a Valentine’s Day post. Maybe it’s because I think of Valentine’s Day as a crass commercial holiday, pushing an artificial and hamfisted idea of Romantic Love on the populous so that they can consume all of their sugar-coated crap. Or maybe it’s because I would have to review a romantic comedy, a genre I generally hate outside of a few movies like The Princess Bride.  Or maybe it's just because I have no love life and and I project that through refusing to honor a holiday that reminds me of my constant failure.  Well, in my continuing quest to do away with the negativity in my life I’m going to actually do a Valentine’s Day Review this year and talk about a romantic, heartwarming film from one of America’s most underrated directors. Prepare to feel the love as I review

Film, 1984 

Director: John Carpenter 

Story 

After a Voyager space probe is intercepted by aliens they send one of their own to planet Earth to check us out. Things don’t go so well though as its spacecraft is immediately shot down over North America (where else?). This alien then clones a body from the DNA of a dead man and enlists his widow’s aid in getting to Arizona where it can make a rendezvous with its comrades and go back home. Along the way the Starman will learn about the gamut of human emotions, from fear and hate to joy and… love. 

Review 

Sometimes you come across a movie that’s not good, but not bad either. It’s… okay. Starman is one of those movies. I was mildly entertained for two hours but at the end of the day couldn’t claim that I had just seen something special. On the plus side this film has some great acting, especially from Jeff Bridges as the titular alien. Watching this guy you really will believe that he’s from another planet. Everything, from his curiosity and attitudes to his gradual grasp of English will seem completely realistic and exactly like what would happen if an extraterrestrial were to visit our planet.

In addition, there are quite a few laughs to be had at Starman’s misunderstanding of Earth customs, which means that this film never gets *too* somber. Karen Allen does a good job too, ably portraying a woman who sees an alien morph into her dead husband right before her eyes, freaking the fuck out and then gradually learning to accept and even love the strange being that is dragging her halfway across the country on a road trip that is as far from normal as you can get outside of a Hunter S. Thompson novel. Special effects are generally very good (including the aforementioned morphing scene) and don’t overpower the story, as some 80s sci-fi flicks are wont to do.

Unfortunately, this movie completely lacks subtlety… everything is in-your-face and obvious – as is the norm for most Eighties movies. The US Government is EVIL as they attempt to track down Starman and capture him for medical experimentation or worse. I hate it when movies do this. If we did encounter a being from a civilization more advanced than our own, wouldn’t we want to be more diplomatic in case they would take violent offense to our actions? Watching this you clearly know who the good guys and bad guys are. Everything else is obvious too. You can definitely tell when you’re supposed to cry or laugh or go “aww.” The religious symbolism is hamfisted as well. Okay, I get it, Starman is Jesus – could we move on please?  The romance is pretty sappy and obvious too, but most movie love stories are.

I guess my biggest beef with Starman is that it doesn’t feel like a John Carpenter film. Most of his movies you can watch and tell who the director is (and not just because he puts his name before the freaking title for every one)… he’s a very individualistic director who usually makes (or made, I haven’t seen any of his latter-day movies which aren’t supposed to be that good) unique and entertaining celluloid gems. But Starman just seems like your average 80s Hollywood movie. Carpenter has said that he made this film so that he could continue to work in Hollywood, but couldn’t he have put a little more effort into it? Come on, man, you made Escape From New York! Oh, and the music score is bland and forgettable – and in a movie called Starman they didn’t even include the David Bowie song anywhere in the movie. What’s the problem guys, too obvious for you?

In the end I can only recommend Starman for someone who is a John Carpenter completest or someone who wants to watch one of the best acting jobs of Jeff Bridges’ career (just behind, you know, his Academy Award winning performance in Tron). Oh, or anyone who want to see either Karen Allen in her panties or Jeff Bridges in the buff.


Well, that's my Valentine's Day post.  Don't expect another romance movie post for a long time, because I can only take so much Hollywood lovey-dovey sugar in one year.

Wow, I Spent Way Too Much Time Writing About This Movie

I know that I said last time that I would be doing some high adventure in the desert next, but I’m taking a quick detour this week for two reasons: a) I’m actually expanding my intended desert adventure post into something beyond a simple review and that’s going to take time and b) Ken Russell died at the beginning of this week and I thought I’d review one of his movies. Now you might think that I’m doing this as a special tribute; that I revere Russell and want to exalt his praises now that he’s dead. Actually, that thought couldn’t be further from the truth: I think that Ken Russell was a talentless hack and loathe and despise his movies. Okay, I take that back: I should not and will not just use this post to slag on the dead.  Besides I was being rather unreasonable with that last statement because prior to today I had only seen one of his films: the execrable Tommy (although to be fair to him all of that blame for that cinematic abortion cannot be assigned to Russell seeing as The Who themselves participated in its creation and could have stopped the project at any time). Tommy is one of my most hated movies of all time, ranking up (down?) there with Armageddon and Die Another Day – it is one of the few films that inspires actual rage and revulsion in me. Anywho, I thought on the occasion of Ken Russell’s death that I would be fair to the dude and watch another one of his films and see if Tommy was just an aberration in his film catalogue, to see if I can actually enjoy a Ken Russell movie. So I looked around for one of his movies that might be interesting to me and finally settled on

Film, 1980

Director: Ken Russell

Story

Psychologist, professor and all-around nutcase Doctor Edward Jessup is experimenting with different states of consciousness and their effect on the physical self. After a trip to Mexico where he picks up some potent Native Ritual Drugs he starts ingesting the strange substance and spending time in a sensory deprivation tank where he starts to exhibit startling signs of physical transformation….

Review

Altered States is better than Tommy but that’s kind of like saying that being punched in the gut is better than being kicked in the nuts. Alright, that’s not true, I’m being unnecessarily nasty. This isn’t a bad movie but it’s not good, either. Altered States is…

…watchable?

Yeah, that’s it. It’s an interesting enough experience and not a *hideous* way to spend an hour and forty minutes but it is by no means a classic film or even a good one. It’s not a spectacular shit storm like Tommy was though so it’s not a total loss. I actually enjoyed parts of it and saw some potential in it, potential that could have been drawn out by another, more talented director – someone like John Boorman or David Cronenberg. The good points here are the intriguing (if flawed and completely non-believable) premise of mind over matter and the character study of the main character, played here by William Hurt (even though the acting by Hurt himself is not quite up to the task – more on that below). The main character arc of Jessup finding out what’s really important to him and why is probably the best part of the movie (well, besides seeing Blair Brown naked at a few points).

Or William Hurt, for those of you so inclined.

The special effects are pretty good and compared to Tommy (again, the only other Russell movie I have seen although I am informed that other Russell movies suffer from the very problem I am about to mention) Altered States is positively subdued in its gratuitous over-the-top “shocking” imagery.

What this means though (and where the negatives begin) is that the aforementioned gratuitous imagery of Altered States is here in large abundance compared to just about every other movie on the planet. Also in abundance is the usual Ken Russell overly pretentious bullshit. I actually had some hopes for the movie after a rather subdued opening sequence and few quiet scenes but my optimism was quickly dashed and splattered to the ground after the scene where Jessup and his newly acquainted (no, really, it only takes about two minutes of screen time) paramour Emily have sex and afterwards he says that during it he was thinking about Jesus and the Crucifixion the whole time. At that point I laughed involuntarily; I think my brains came out my nose. Then a few minutes later this came on the screen

and I stated to suspect that Blair Brown was going to start rolling around in baked beans at some point. And this brings me to my biggest beef with Ken Russell making movies, and that is that he was not any good at it. Just throwing bizarre imagery up on the screen (even in a movie about psychedelic drugs) is not good filmmaking. Doing things just to be “shocking” is not good filmmaking. Ken Russell had all of the visual subtlety of a sledgehammer, and he didn’t even know how to wield that hammer. Later on in the film (SPOILER ALERT) Jessup partially regresses into a subhuman ape-creature and I found myself watching a completely different movie. I mean, a wild primitive ape-man escaping a lab and running around a modern city would make for an entertaining movie but here the sequence is silly and just plain unnecessary.
(END SPOILER)

Cue Toots and the Maytals.

That’s why I said before that Cronenberg or Boorman would have made a better director for this project: both have portrayed disturbing, outlandish stuff on screen but in a more understated and intelligent way. Videodrome, like Altered States deals with differing perceptions of reality brought on by external stimuli but Cronenberg is much more subtle with it.

Pictured: subtlety.

He also makes us question throughout the movie just how much of what we’re seeing is real and how much is in the main character’s head. And there is a sense of growing dread and horror that Russell’s movie doesn’t have at all. John Boorman would have also been a good choice to direct this: he comes from the same cinematic tradition as Ken Russell but has much more talent than Russell ever had. Yes, he has made some bad movies, but at least Zardoz was so supremely bad that it was entertaining. Russell’s bad movies are just painful.

Instead of something painful I thought I'd insert a picture of this. 

Much nicer, no?

Painful is also a word I can use to describe some of the acting here. Too much of the dialogue is screamed by the actors, in particular the actor playing the medical doctor opposed to Jessup’s self-experiments. This role could have been a good, intelligent foil to the protagonist and raised legitimate questions about his intentions and whether what he was doing was right. Instead the character just comes off as shrill and unlikable, and the audience is crudely manipulated into disliking him and rooting unconditionally for the hero. See what I said earlier about Russell’s lack of subtlety? Also, the acting by William Hurt (told you I’d get to it) is… not that great. And it’s weird because it could have been. When I was watching this with the sound turned off to capture screenshots, I noticed how animated and excited Hurt’s face was in certain scenes, but with the sound turned on his delivery seemed dull and wooden. This is because Hurt constantly speaks with the same level monotone, even when raising his voice (strangely enough). He’s done this in other roles too – I remember him being this dull and monotonous in the TV miniseries version of Dune. All of this just goes to show how important voice and inflection is in acting – I think William Hurt could do with some acting lessons from William Shatner.

Now, you stay in there and recite the "Risk is our business" speech 

a hundred times, young man, and maybe we'll let you out. 

Well, that’s Altered States. Does it change my opinion of (the now deceased) Ken Russell? Not really, but at least it wasn’t a complete waste of my time and a piece of putrid, pestilent pus like Tommy was. It is actually worth checking out if you like old and/or esoteric science fiction movies even if it’s not in the same league as 2001 (or even Logan’s Run). So, um… good job, Mr. Russell?  Rest in peace.

Hopefully there's a big party waiting for you on the other side.