166 - Nightmares

    An anthology of four stories, culled from unaired segments of a short-lived TV show, Darkroom.
    In Terror in Topanga, a lady goes out for cigarettes, despite warnings of an escaped murderer in the area.
    In Bishop of Battle, a young man is obsessed with reaching the final level of an arcade game.
    In The Benediction, a member of the clergy going through a crisis of faith is attacked by a truck during a desert drive.
    And lastly, in Night of the Rat, a family is terrorized by a massive rat.

    I've periodically heard of this movie for a long time, and I finally got around to finding a copy to watch.  For an 80s anthology movie, it's pretty good.  It's very tame - no real gore, only a modest amount of tension.  Production values are moderate, which is about right for being taken from a TV series.  The cast has some great familiar faces.  Emilio Estavez stars in Bishop of Battle, and his little friend is Billy Jayne!  Lance Henriksen stars in The Benediction, and he's a reliable performer.
    The first story is simple, but it's a pleasing start.  It's a common urban legend, but somehow, it doesn't play out the way I anticipated.  After the reveal, I was surprised that it was that simple.
    The second is campy, in the way that outdated impressions of video games are.  The ending isn't scary at all, but I think this reminds me more of the quality that Tales From the Darkside had.
    The third is really the weakest segment, but I don't think the story is at fault.  It's mostly the sound quality.  A lot of the dialogue is mixed very quiet, especially compared to the massive noises of the truck.  It's very annoying.
    The fourth story is actually one of the strongest ones, at least because it's unpredictable.  The same sound issues bring it down a bit, but there's a lot of novelty to be had with a giant rat, and it doesn't go with an obvious ending.  The effects are wonderfully dated, but they try to cover it up by doing some quick edits.

165 - Crawlspace

    A peculiar ex-doctor runs an apartment building.  He uses vents as a means of spying on his tenants, and eventually killing them.
    This is one of the strangest 80s movies I've seen.  It's not unusual in any particular way, but there's a very strange feel to this movie.  I'll see if I can explain.
    The movie is noteworthy for one main reason - it stars Klaus Kinski.  I mostly know him for his role in the 70s Nosferatu, which he plays incredibly well.  Otherwise, the picture looks like a mid-budget project.  There's this bizarre feeling to the script.  Like it was not quite done.  The entire cast - outside of Kinski - is acting in this weirdly amateur way.  Combined with the direction, I had this constant feeling like there was going to be a reveal that there was a movie within a movie.  The coloring supports this.  Everything is very vivid and well lit, which doesn't seem like the right approach to this kind of movie.  Even during scenes taking place inside the vents, there's plenty of light, and just a touch of shadow.  For a movie taking place entirely inside, in apartment living spaces, everything is way too clean.  Even the messy area of the villain's apartment looks like a strangely organized mess.
    The villain is another weird problem.  Some backstory is developed, but it pulls in two directions, and one of them is the clearly weak choice.  First, we hear about how he got in the habit of euthanizing patients that he thought were in serious pain.  Then he accidentally euthanizes a completely healthy patient (although why he had a completely healthy patient is never addressed).  He discovers that he has a taste for killing patients.  This is a good enough background.  The movie then makes this strange attempt to further deepen the character by turning him into a Nazi.  This doesn't really add anything, and is seems almost like a distraction.  If it were just hinted at, that would be great.  But they spend roughly an equal amount of time developing this backstory.
    The one thing I would like to point out is that there's a hilarious sex scene really early in the movie, around 10 minutes in.  It's not how it's shot, but the acting and the dialogue is great.

164 - The Odd Couple

    Newly separated from his wife, Felix moves in with his friend Oscar.  Their incompatibility raises tensions, as the pair attempt to work through their respective problems.
    When I was very young, and still sleeping in my parents bedroom, I grew accustomed to the music of the sitcoms that would be on as my parents fell asleep.  I usually heard all of Cheers, but then I would hear the opening for The Odd Couple, even though my parents usually shut the TV off at that point.
    And during high school, I performed in a Neil Simon play, Rumors.  I knew it was a comedy, but it didn't seem to be especially funny.  As I've seen more of Neil Simon's work, I've come to understand it a little better.  His sense of humor is usually a bit restrained.  He likes mining uncomfortable situations for humor.  The net result is a show that isn't hilarious, but is enjoyable.
    The Odd Couple is a much darker movie than I expected.  It deals with suicide, divorce, loneliness, and all of it is played out in a way that encourages cringing at the awkwardness of their situation.  I think I expected more of a lighthearted romp through a mismatched pair.  That's there, but it's not lighthearted.
    I found myself wondering what the material would be like if it were handled in a different way.  Playing the leads differently could turn things around.
    What stands out as one of the biggest weaknesses is that I really didn't like either of the leads.  They play the roles very well, but Matthau's Oscar sexually harasses a waitress pretty early on, and Lemmon's Felix is remarkably myopic about his own behavior.
    I'm glad that I saw it.  It's one of those classic comedies that established a solid tradition.

163 - Visiting Hours

    An outspoken newscaster is severely injured by a man who has issues with women.  While she's in the hospital recovering, he attempts to finish her off.
    The box art suggested a slasher kind of horror movie.  It came out in 1982, which is usually a good sign.  I start it up, and I'm pleased to find two notable cast members; William Shatner has a supporting role, and Michael Ironside is the villain!
    Michael Ironside is an actor who I best know from his role as the right-hand-man in Total Recall, as well as the tough teacher in Starship Troopers.  He plays a villain well, but I think this is the first time I've seen him as a lead.  And he's great!  I have no idea why he didn't catch on.
    The story itself is a little thin, but it plays out better than the summary suggests.  Much of the movie is taken up with the villain stalking a variety of people, and occasionally attacking.  His performance is reserved, but intense, but it works with the direction very, very well.  The audience is never fed information about what will happen next.  We can't predict what his plan is.  Since we discover it at the same pace, it makes for a genuinely surprising movie.
    There's also an unusual change in focus.  First, we pay close attention to the newscaster.  After she's in the hospital, we start to pay more attention to the nurse.  Then we have some worry about her family.  The variety of targets also serves to make the villain's actions harder to predict.
    It all ties together for a pretty predictable ending.  Along the way, we got a decent amount of character development, and a very solid middle for the movie.  I expected worse, but it's really not bad!

162 - Juan of the Dead

    A zombie crisis hits Cuba, and Juan decides to recruit some of his friends into running a business to kill zombies.
    I had read an interesting review of this some time ago, and it took a fair amount of time to track it down.  I'm a little wary of this type of title.  If the title seems to be based off of a pun, it's usually a bad idea.  I even thought that Shaun of the Dead was a pretty poor title, but the quality of that movie, combined with how much it references the original Romero movies, allows me to forgive that title.
    In this case, I don't think the title is warranted.  At least it communicates what the movie will be about.
    It's a pretty fun movie, but it's a little confusing for a viewer that is so isolated from what things are like in Cuba.  There are some steps that are really straightforward; throughout the movie, the zombies are called dissidents.  The newscasters try to pin the unrest on the US.  It's unclear how much the citizens actually believe this.  I am very uncertain as to the quality of this movie.  From what I understood, it was enjoyable.  But I could tell there was a whole lot I didn't understand, and I have no idea how more knowledgeable people would feel about it.
    There's a strange tone that settles into the movie, and it's hard to explain.  There are some scenes that seem unusually dark, with character actions that seem more cruel.  This is counterbalanced by some very lighthearted sequences, like a dance-themed fight.  When characters die, no one seems to be especially broken up about it.
    There's one touch that seems especially puzzling to me.  Near the end of the movie, Juan saves a little boy.  He sets the boy up with his friends, who are fleeing to safety.  It's a nice character moment, but the boy plays no role in the ending.  If this were placed early in the film, it would establish character for Juan.  Instead, it just seems like we must have missed a reason for the scene.
    Still, it's pretty good.  The political tone to it is interesting, and helps keep it fresh.  Still, there's remarkably little connection to the dead from Romero's universe.  The approach to the movie reminded me more of the Dawn of the Dead remake.

161 - We Are What We Are

    After the mother of a secretive, cannibalistic family dies, the rest of the family tries to keep their traditions together, even as local authorities get suspicious.
    This is an American remake of a Mexican movie.  I haven't seen the original, but based on what I'm reading of the original, they're fairly different.  I think I like cannibal movies.  There aren't a huge number of them, but I have a real appreciation for Ravenous, and I find it an interesting concept in horror, mostly because it's the sort of thing that could be reasonable.  Cannibalism out of necessity is very different than cannibalism by choice, but it's still an interesting distinction.
    This movie is shot well.  It's a dark and gloomy movie, but it's rarely too dark.  And the coloring is really nicely done.  The town has been dealing with a flood's worth of rainstorms, and the picture communicates that idea very well.
    The pacing of the movie is fairly slow, but it's probably more effective if you don't know that the movie deals with cannibalism.  I found myself wondering how the movie plays out if you have no idea what to expect.
    I'm a little uncertain what I thought of this.  I liked the strangeness of the family, which doesn't come across as insane or bloodthirsty.  Much of their dialogue suggests that they view this as a religious duty, and they feel obligated to perform it.  This approach forces the viewer to keep re-evaluating their impression of them, which does help the pacing feel more natural.
    Where the movie takes some missteps is partly technical - most of the father's dialogue is nearly impossible to figure out.  Occasionally, he shouts, which can be understood.  Most of the time, he mumbles in a deep voice, and it's very hard to tell what he says.  Other than that, something about the ending didn't seem right.  I don't want to give it away, since I didn't see it coming, but it left me feeling like I must have really misunderstood the messages that a few of the characters were giving.
    So I might revisit this movie.  Not soon, but probably a few years from now.

160 - Kick-Ass 2

    Chris D'Amico, who was Red Mist in the first movie, returns as The Motherfucker, intent on having his revenge on Kick-Ass, and becoming the first real super villain.
    I read the comics of Kick-Ass 2 as they were coming out, and I was amazed at how brutal it was.  I couldn't believe that they would make a serious effort to adapt it into a movie.  There was some really cruel violence, including some rape, and children being slaughtered.  They eliminated most of this, and much of the violence is actually toned down from what is in the comics.  This is a good thing.  The comic was really difficult to read, and it only works because it doesn't force the reader to linger on things the way that movies can.  Plus, in the comic, a dog is killed.  That doesn't happen in the movie.
    In a weird way, I liked this one a bit more than the first.  It still has some problems, but I find the spread of heroism very inspiring.  I mean, I'm a lazy guy, but I like to think that if I had the means, I would help people as needed.  It's a joy to see the variety of people that get drawn into being a hero.  There's only one real villain.  Most of his army is fighting only because they're paid.  This changes our perception of them - they're mostly just easily compromised, driven by greed.  After The Motherfucker is defeated, I would have liked to see some of them just abandon the fight because they weren't going to get paid.
    The message that comes out at the end is mostly that the benefit of superheroes is that they influence people to be everyday heroes.  It's a nice message, and we get a nice hint of what that's like.
    There are a few weaknesses to the movie.  One of them is the change in direction that Mindy's storyline took, compared to the comic.  (I might be confusing this with her storyline in the Hit-Girl spinoff title.)  The resolution to her school subplot isn't especially satisfying, because this sick-stick thing doesn't fit in.  It's too much of a fantasy element.
    As much as I like the music cue from 28 Days Later (In the House - In a Heartbeat) the use of a ripoff version in this soundtrack was distracting.  It shows up many times.  I think I counted about three, but there may have been more.  It's a weirdly bold piece of music to copy, especially in such a complete way.
    Both Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass 2 really bother some people, and I understand their problem with it.  It's not something that can be argued against.  The movie takes place in the real world, but it also includes substantial elements that are not part of the real world.  This requires the viewer to hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at the same time.  I suppose that years of reading comics has allowed me to do that.  But I also know other comic fans that can't handle these movies.
    We are supposed to be horrified by the violence in these movies, which is the way it should be.  In a way, these movies are more responsible than your standard action fare.  I guess that might make some people uncomfortable.