The Unimonster's Crypt Screening Room: FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!

Title:  FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!

Date of Theatrical Release:  1965

MPAA Rating:  N/A

 

Russ Meyer was one of the most successful of the Exploiteers who churned out hundreds of low-budget pictures for the burgeoning “adult” market beginning in the late 1950’s.  He gets the credit for directing the first “Nudie-Cutie,” THE IMMORAL MR. TEAS, in 1959, and directed seventeen films (both features and shorts) in the next nine years.  In the mid-‘60’s, he made four films that he termed his “Gothic” cycle.  These films were exemplified by their gritty, cheap texture; strong stories; black-and-white photography, weak male characters, and domineering female characters.  These four films were LORNA, MUDHONEY, MOTOR-PSYCHO, and FASTER PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!  Of these, FASTER PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! has become recognized as Meyer’s signature film, the one with the greatest popularity among his fans—all the more surprising due to the lack of Meyer’s customary nude sequences.

FASTER PUSSYCAT… is an atypical Meyer film in that regard; it is virtually the only Meyer film without nudity.  That doesn’t mean it lacks sexual tension, or that it is less exploitative.  In fact, it is pure Exploitation Film, with even the title intended to convey a sense of speed, sex, and violence.

The movie follows three exotic dancers—Varla (Tura Satana [see Bobbie’s Tribute to Tura Satana, above]), Rosie (Haji), and Billie (Lori Williams)—as they race their sports cars through a Southern California desert.  They encounter a young couple, Tommy (Ray Barlow) and Linda (Susan Bernard), and Varla, the group’s leader and a woman with significant anger issues, rapidly loses control.  She beats Tommy to death, and kidnaps Linda, drugging her and tying her up.

A short while later, they all stop at an isolated gas station on the highway.  As they talk, they notice an elderly man in a wheelchair being tended by a younger man, physically imposing but mentally impaired.  The attendant (Mickey Foxx) informs them that the pair (Stuart Lancaster and Dennis Busch) are father and son, and that they live on a broken-down old ranch nearby.  The old man has another son (Paul Trinka), and there’s rumored to be a fortune hidden on the property.

This is enough to pique Varla’s interest, and she hatches a plan—a plan to murder and rob the old man.  What follows is a whirlwind descent into violence, as greed, lust, and hatred boil over on the old man’s desolate ranch.  He and his sons are concealing secrets of their own, and Varla soon discovers that she might not be as much in control as she believes.

FASTER PUSSYCAT…, though atypical in regards to nudity for Meyer, is in other ways pure Russ Meyer ‘Sleaze.’  It focuses on many of the themes he loved to explore—the lower-class rural life of those who can be termed, “poor white trash;” isolated groups in conflict; weak, amoral men and dominating but equally amoral women; and lust, envy, avarice, all the baser emotions.  As is usual for a Meyer film, there’s really no one whom the audience can root for in this movie—every character is a flawed, twisted specimen of humanity.  The viewer sympathizes with Linda’s plight as Varla’s captive, but she appears, innocent and child-like, as a rabbit in a den of wolves, with scant hope of survival.

FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! may not be my personal favorite of Meyer’s movies, but it’s undeniably one of his best.  The story is classic Exploitation Film gold, the performances are great, the bizarre cast of characters perfectly conceived, and the black-and-white photography is top-notch.  Musician and director Rob Zombie, in introducing the movie on Turner Classic Movies’ TCMUnderground, referred to it as Meyer’s, “… pure vision.”  That it is, and while Meyer’s “pure vision” might not be to everyone’s liking, one can’t pick a better film to act as an introduction to this director.

The Unimonster's Crypt Screening Room: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, Pt. I

Title:  HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, Part I

Date of Theatrical Release:  19 November 2010

MPAA Rating:  PG-13

For the past decade, some of the best examples of genre filmmaking have been the HARRY POTTER series of films, based on the novels of J. K. Rowling.  The story of a young wizard’s education, as he grows into his ultimate destiny, captivated millions of young readers, and the movies have become the greatest moneymaking franchise in film history, grossing over $1.9 billion in domestic release so far.  Over $225 million of that total thus far belongs to the newest entry in the series, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, Part I.

One of the keys to the success of the films has been the decision to allow the characters to grow naturally, as the actors who portray them grow.  As they have, the films have taken on a decidedly darker, more ominous tone, in keeping with the increasing maturity of the three leads.  For ten years now, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have brought life to Rowling’s creation, and have aged, along with their fans, into twenty-something adults.

Their characters are now in their 17^th year, and their time at Hogwarts School is coming to an end.  It has, in fact, already ended, with Professor Snape’s murder of Dumbledore at the end of HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.  On the run from Voldemort’s Death Eaters, the trio isolates themselves from friends and family, hiding out in the wilderness as they search for the remaining horcruxes, or magical objects into which Voldemort has cast fragments of his soul.  As long as they survive, he cannot die.

They discover that the Dark Lord is attempting to gather the Deathly Hallows; three legendary artifacts crafted by Death himself, which when combined would give one power over Death.  Can they find the rest of the horcruxes, and the Deathly Hallows, and defeat Voldemort’s plan?

This, the penultimate Potter film, is the best so far.  The lead characters are, for all intents, adults, and the issues they are facing are weightier than most.  Gone are the artifices of the early films—“How can I rescue Ron while standing for my Potions mid-term”—along with the sometimes oppressively cute aspects of Hogwarts, and the wizarding world in general.  Chocolate frogs and Whomping willows are fine for 11- and 12-year-old wizards and witches, not for 17-year-olds who are soldiers in a war between good and evil.

David Yates is back to direct the series’ conclusion, and does an admirable job of it—at least, if the first part is representative of the whole.  Given the nature of the story, and the fact that this is the culmination of a decade-long journey, the producers wisely decided to split the final book into two films, rather than try to condense the events into one.  Yates, who also directed … ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and … THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, has a solid grasp of both the characters and Rowling’s overall vision, and the talent to translate them to the screen.

Steve Kloves adapted the book to the screen, as he has every film in the series other than … ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, and has done his customary excellent job.  Though I love the movies, I’ve never read any of the books, so I’m ill-equipped to render a verdict on how faithful he is to the source.  However, as Rowling has been intimately involved in each production, I have to believe she is satisfied with the results.

The one constant in this series has been the fact that the youthful leads have been richly supported by a cast of talented veteran actors, led by the likes of Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Ralph Fiennes.  That has changed for this outing, but not entirely for the worse.  Yes, Radcliffe, Watson and Grint are called upon to carry a far larger burden than has been the norm, but they managed to succeed at their task.  It would have been nice to see more than cameo appearances by the series’ regulars, but Yates kept the focus where it belonged.

As always, the visual effects are superb, making the world of Harry Potter come to life for the viewer.  This franchise has always excelled at this form of magic, and viewers will not be disappointed now.  There are several spectacular effects sequences, along with one or two, most notably a lengthy animated sequence, that don’t quite work as intended.  They are minor flaws, however, when compared to the spectacle of an aerial battle above London, a battle that witnesses the deaths of a number of major and minor characters.

This and other violent aspects of the movie have led some to describe it as too intense for small children, and I would probably agree with them.  However, this ceased to be a franchise for small children several installments ago, and I doubt that this will be many people’s first encounter with the world of Harry Potter.  Still, as with all movies, parents are the best judge of what is suitable for their children.  Personally, I took my 13-year-old nephew to see it, and he though it was “… Beast.”  [Ed. Note:  I assume that means he liked it…]

In many ways, I prefer not having read the books prior to seeing the films; I have the enjoyment of being surprised by events, rather than anticipating them.  For ten years I’ve followed this story; I’m quite content to wait for the final installment to find out who wins, who loses; who survives, and who doesn’t.  The drawback is, of course, waiting for July for the answers to those questions.

It’s not often I will make an effort to see a movie on it’s opening weekend.  Frankly, I’m usually content to wait for the DVD, rather than fork out the inflated ticket prices charged by the average Cineplex.  But the Potter films, like STAR TREK movies, are the exception to that rule.  I recommend you make an effort to see it at the theater as well—it’s worth the expense.

Unimonster's Screening Room: THE WOLFMAN (2010)

Title: THE WOLFMAN

Date of Theatrical Release: 12 February 2010

MPAA Rating: R


[Ed. Note: There’s a new feature here at the Crypt, The Screening Room, wherein I’ll periodically review first-run films currently in theaters. It will work no different than my DVD Reviews—I understand that your entertainment dollars are as hard to come by as mine, and if I tell you to spend a goodly chunk of those dollars to see a movie, you’d better believe I was blown away by it. Also, there will be a rating system to help you decide just how much a movie impressed me, based on the number of skulls, 1-5, I award it. So read on and enjoy!]

Since 1999, Universal Studios has been on a quest to reinvent it’s most beloved properties, the Classic Monsters of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Beginning with Stephen Sommers fantastic redux of THE MUMMY, continuing through his misinterpretation of the Monsters in VAN HELSING, and helped along the way by a flood of DVD releases from Universal’s vaults, the studio has reenergized Classic Horror fans both young and old. Their latest offering to those whose notions of Monsters predate the TWILIGHT Saga is Joe Johnston’s THE WOLFMAN, in theaters now.

Titularly a remake of 1941’s THE WOLF-MAN, the resemblance to its predecessor begins and ends with the character names. The setting is shifted slightly, from the Welsh town of Llanwelly to a more nondescript town in the English countryside, and from a roughly contemporary (to 1941) period to 1891. The characters of Lawrence Talbot and Sir John, his father, are more richly drawn than in the original, with Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins exploring complexities in the father-son relationship only hinted at by Lon Chaney, Jr. and Claude Rains. As written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, there are layers to this bond that the viewer will find surprising.

Lawrence Talbot, (Del Toro) an actor and the expatriate son of Sir John Talbot, (a superb job by Hopkins) receives an urgent summons to return home following the disappearance of his brother Ben. The message, from Ben’s fiancée Gwen Conliffe, (an underwhelming performance by Emily Blunt) reaches Lawrence on the London stage, where the Americanized actor is playing the lead role in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. He returns to Talbot Hall to be greeted at the door by his estranged father, shotgun in hand. Ben’s body has been found, horribly mutilated. What’s more, two others have died under similar circumstances in recent weeks, and the locals are convinced that a group of gypsies, encamped just outside the town’s environs, is to blame.

Lawrence, having promised Gwen he would find out what had happened to his brother, visits the Gypsy camp hoping to find answers. During his visit, however, the camp is attacked by something—something large, something powerful, something unseen. Lawrence catches a glimpse of it as it runs off in pursuit of a young boy, and gives chase. He becomes the hunted, however, and is attacked by the creature before it can be driven off by gunfire from its pursuers. Lawrence is taken home, wounded and near death.

He wavers in and out of consciousness for the next month, but as the moon waxes towards full, so does his strength. By the eve of the next full moon, he is feeling better than ever, and the jagged scar left by his wound has completely healed. And as the full moon rises over Talbot Hall, the beast runs loose again.

The scope of this film is much broader and grander than the original, taking full advantage of the vast differences in budget, technology, and creative freedom enjoyed by modern filmmakers. The production design is superb, creating the atmosphere so vital to recapturing the essence of the great Universal Horrors, an element that VAN HELSING sadly lacked. The photography, by Shelly Johnson, beautifully presents that atmosphere to the viewer, from the crumbling edifice of Talbot Hall to the gas-lit streets of London to dark, fog-shrouded woods of the English countryside.

But we are talking about THE WOLFMAN, and there would be nothing worth photographing if the look of the creature itself had not been ‘right’. Thankfully, Universal realized there was but one artist capable of doing justice to that originally created by Jack Pierce, and that is Rick Baker. Baker, who, along with John Landis redefined the Werewolf movie with 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, now brings the “Man” portion of the Wolf-Man equation back to the fore, after thirty years of increasingly canine-like lycanthropes. The make-up is terrific, resembling what Pierce created while remaining state-of-the-art.

While this is director Joe Johnston’s first shot at a Horror Film, he has managed to build-up a rather impressive genre resume so far. Beginning with 1989’s HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and 1991’s THE ROCKETEER, to 2001’s JURASSIC PARK III, Johnston is no stranger to genre audiences. He also has notable credentials in the visual effects world, having worked on the original STAR WARS trilogy and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Though this is his first venture into the world of classic Horror, he handles it with style, creating a fitting homage to the movie that launched the Horror career of Lon Chaney, Jr. and gave us the creature that would carry the studio throughout the first half of the 1940’s.

I saw this on the opening weekend, accompanied by the 12-year-old Uni-Nephew. Both of us loved the film, daresay for different reasons. It was his first real exposure to the classic monsters, to the great Horror Films that his uncle so dearly loves, and I’m overjoyed that I could share that with him. For me, it was as if watching something reappear that I thought had long since vanished beneath an avalanche of metrosexually androgynous vampires and testosterone-juiced lycanthropes who resemble a cross between Lassie and Rambo. It was the rebirth of classic Horror, and it is just as welcome now as when it was reborn in 1958 with Hammer’s HORROR OF DRACULA. If you consider yourself a fan of the classic Monsters, you have to see this movie. Don’t wait for the DVD, this film should be seen on the big screen. Four out of five skulls, with an extra jawbone thrown in for good measure.