The Grumpy Young Man

Stephen Hawking

2009-07-15T02:35:38Z

grumpyyoungman @ 2009-03-12T23:52:00

2009-03-13T03:53:05Z

You've all done very well...

2009-01-26T04:57:33Z

Orson

2009-01-03T01:52:59Z

Every few months I watch this, and then spend weeks trying not to begin every utterance with "MWAAAAAH! THE FRENCH!"

Washington Redskins win the Championship (1937)

2008-12-18T04:04:56Z

Baugh Stars as Redskins Annex Title
The column from 1937 describing Sammy Baugh's leadership of the Redskins as they won the NFL Championship. After reading that, I'm thinking of looking to see if there are any decent collections of re-prints of newspaper news/sports stories from the 1930s. Sportswriters of today could learn a thing or two from Shirley Povich's command of the language...

Damn...

2008-12-18T02:37:09Z

"Slingin'" Sammy Baugh, R.I.P.
Hall of Famer Baugh dead at 94

Just yesterday I was flipping through his wikipedia page and his records on the NFL stats site...

Austin Powers... The Three Stooges... and Bush

2008-12-17T01:59:55Z

Disgusting!

2008-12-04T04:22:24Z

One dollar DVDs: Part 45 (The Tell-Tale Heart)

2008-11-30T06:01:10Z

Movie title: The Tell-Tale Heart
Starring: Laurence Payne, Adrienne Corri, Dermot Walsh
Director: Ernest Morris
Writer: Edgar Allan Poe (original), Brian Clemens (adaption), Eldon Howard (adaption)
Genre: Horror
Year: 1960
My rating:
Amazon.com page

It must be an ambitious undertaking for a film production to tackle Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart". After all, it is one of Poe's most famous and chilling works. If the film falls flat on its face, then the director can't simply blame the original text for being underwhelming. And much of the horror is based upon Poe's prose which is not the easiest thing to convey in film.

However, the most challenging aspect must be the fact that Poe's original story is a little more than five pages long. It works as one quick effective jolt, not as a long sustaining opus. While The Internet Movie Database lists an astonishing 22 attempts at filming this story, I was hesitant to see how this particular instantiation (a low-budget 1960 British full length film) would attempt to pad the length.

Writing additional material into Poe's classic work is something that should only be attempted by experts. Surprisingly, there was a writing team up to the challenge. The most famous of this pair is Brian Clemens who is now more known for having written for and having produced The Avengers, The Professionals and other British television programs. At this point in his career, he was churning out a lot of B-movie crime/thriller scripts with his writing partner Eldon Howard.

As one would assume, quite a lot of story has been added to flesh out this production to a standard movie running time. In this telling of the tale, the main character is a fellow called Edgar (not much of a stretch). Edgar is a troubled, lonely and strange man who has a very odd manner in dealing with the fair sex (again, they aren't going very far for material). I'm not sure exactly what connection (if any) the producers where attempting between Edgar the character and Edgar the author, but it is notable that he is a much weaker character than the brash central figure of the original story.

Betty, a pretty young woman, moves in across the street, and Edgar is soon painfully infatuated. Despite the lady's obvious unease with his advances, Edgar's mind quickly escalates the relationship far past where it exists in actuality. Within the span of a few chaste dinner dates (and one uncomfortable groping session), he's buying jewelry for her and imagining the two of them in a fantasy of wedded bliss with a long and happy future together.

Of course, reality must intrude, and it does so in the form of Edgar's best friend, Carl. Carl is a charming and handsome man who Edgar insistently invites to a few of his outings with Betty. One thing leads to another, Carl and Betty become very close, and given the original story you can see where this is going to end up, can't you?

The new material not taken from the original story is rather simplistic and wholly predictable. But this actually works in the film's favor. While the film's approach is more conventional in plot, it retains the Gothic feel of the original. The straightforward nature of the storyline allows the tension and the atmospherics to rise. There's no mystery for the viewer, everything is predictable. The audience therefore can focus on the journey rather than spend time worrying about the destination.

The recreation of the 19th Century is very good and the effective black and white cinematography reminded me of more than one Sherlock Holmes film. It did take me a while to realize that the action was taking place in France and not (as I originally assumed) in London. Why the story was set there is a question I can't immediately answer, but the outdoor cafes and florist shops are a nice touch.

The film production has a nice feel to it and there are a few moments where the atmosphere becomes very dark indeed (and probably appeared even more close to the edge in 1960). The cast does a very good job; the overall performances are more theatrical than cinematic in scope, but that acting decision makes a lot of sense within this context. Laurence Payne has the always difficult task of making a psychotic character appear realistic yet he manages quite well. Dermot Walsh and Adrienne Corri (known for roles in A Clockwork Orange and Doctor Who) do an admiral job as the ill-fated romantic pairing.

For overall quality, it doesn't really come close to Poe's original work, but then, few things do. For a low-budget adaptation from the early 1960s, this is surprisingly decent.

Next time on One Dollar DVDs: Wes Craven's CHILLER (1985).

There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

2008-11-04T19:45:35Z

grumpyyoungman @ 2008-11-04T01:49:00

2008-11-04T06:49:37Z

Surprised...

2008-10-30T17:56:47Z

Very surprised to hear that Eric Idle is the new Doctor Who... Didn't see that coming.

One dollar DVDs: Part 44 (Good Against Evil)

2008-10-05T05:50:01Z

Movie title: Good Against Evil
Starring: Dack Rambo, Elyssa Davalos, Richard Lynch, Kim Cattrall
Director: Paul Wendkos
Writer: Jimmy Sangster
Genre: Horror
Year: 1977
My rating:
Amazon.com page

GOOD AGAINST EVIL is an odd film whose structural strangeness is only partially explained by the fact that it's actually a failed television pilot and not a standalone film at all. Theoretically, this should have been a decent film: the director (Paul Wendkos, GIDGET) and writer (Jimmy Sangster, multiple Hammer horror films) both have many successful credits to their name. However, it's the limitations in the pilot format which prevent the film from being viable as a standalone work and the inherent problems within the idea itself which presumably prevented the film from ever progressing beyond a pilot.

The film begins in the New York City of 1955. A baby is born, and Satan is all over it. Appearing in the form of a black cat, he kills the mother (after first messing with her mind via jerky camera work, strange intercutting and spooky incidental music) and then oversees a weird Satanic ritual, the subject is, of course, the newborn.

We then jump forward to the present day (the present day circa 1977). The tainted child has grown up, but is oblivious to the evil that lurks either within her or very near to her (we're a little vague on the exact theology here). She is now is a successful designer in the California fashion industry (one of the morals of our story is that the fashion industry is filled with Satan worshipers). As she joins our story, her parked car is sideswiped by the film's hero and his deliberately ramshackle van.

Since this is a movie, this minor traffic incident results in a continuing stalking situation, which only relents when the Satan Lady (Elyssa Davalos) agrees to date our hero (Dack Rambo) after several long instances of his Not Getting The Hint. After a long and painful courtship (which must take about half of the film's running time) the romance takes a wild turn when -- just before their marriage -- the Satan Lady is hypnotized, kidnapped and taken to New Orleans. Rambo's attempt at rescue involves an exorcism, a vandalized church and a young Kim Cattrall.

It's difficult to judge GOOD AGAINST EVIL as a standalone piece of television because it was originally supposed to be only the first chapter in a continuing story. That possibly explains why the main conflict isn't even hinted at until halfway through. One has to make allowances for the fact that the last twenty minutes appear to come from nowhere (it's all setup for the series). The courtship takes longer to establish because the producers need to have this initial meeting and romance to drive the action -- not just for the remainder of the film -- but for an entire TV series. While these pacing issues are understandable, they do not make for an enjoyable viewing experience. The totality of what we have is mostly a mess.

While one could see some small potential in GOOD AGAINST EVIL as a series, it's not difficult to see why the pilot didn't set the world on fire. Foremost of its sins is that there is an hour in the middle that is intensely boring. Given that this was supposed to air on broadcast television I was beginning to wonder if the producers were relying on advertising breaks and news updates to liven up the action. We're halfway through the film before any kind of urgency is implemented; I can't imagine many in the audience simply having the required patience.

And while its an intriguing premise, it isn't immediately obvious to how a series would proceed. Would every episode begin with Richard Lynch moving his victim to another city and end with Dack Rambo teaming up with a bad-tempered priest to perform an exorcism on Kim Cattrall's daughter? Would the Satan Lady be catatonic in every scene? Would Satan's army of house cats be a recurring element?

Questions, alas, for which there are no answers.

Next time on One Dollar DVDs: Edgar Allen Poe's THE TELL-TALE HEART (1960).

grumpyyoungman @ 2008-10-03T00:20:00

2008-10-03T04:21:46Z

HAIL VICTORY!

2008-09-29T05:01:56Z

One dollar DVDs: Part 43 (Night of Bloody Horror)

2008-09-21T03:20:21Z

Movie title: Night of Bloody Horror
Starring: Gerald McRaney, Gaye Yellen
Director: Joy N. Houck Jr.
Writer: Joy N. Houck Jr., Robert A. Weaver
Genre: Horror
Year: 1969
My rating:
Amazon.com page

Given the incredibly over the top title, I was half expecting NIGHT OF BLOODY HORROR to be an ironic, deliberately silly film in the style of ARMY OF DARKNESS. Then I read the back cover summary which I shall quote in its entirety: "A string of horrible murders haunts the consciousness of a disturbed young man, including his brother shot, his girlfriend gored, and a hospital nurse bludgeoned to death." Well, that's sufficiently cheerful sounding, isn't it? (It's also slightly inaccurate. The hospital nurse is not bludgeoned to death. She simply takes an axe to the chest. Just so you know...)

In case there's any doubt as to what is to follow, the first shot of the film is a closeup of a cross on the top of a church. The first full scene takes place inside that church. I forget if this means that the director is trying to be ironic or trying to make a point, but I do know that the end result will be a very graphic and bloody movie. A good rule of thumb for horror films: the more religious imagery there is, the more buckets of red paint the director is going to fling around.

NIGHT OF BLOODY HORROR was produced in 1969 and is a horror movie very much of that time. Gritty realism is the film's modus operandi: the gore factor is turned up to eleven; the actors are mostly un-made-up and relatively unpleasant to look at; the film stock is washed out and the colors are extremely dreary.

The story is vaguely depressing, often boring, and more than a little inspired by Hitchcock's PSCYHO. Our main character, Wes, is a troubled young fellow. As a child, he accidentally shot his brother and subsequently spent 13 years in an asylum. He's now been released, but has an annoying habit of being stricken by blinding headaches while strange spinning rectangles appear in his point of view shot. When he awakens from these attacks, he has the misfortune to discover that his latest girlfriend has been horribly killed, spindled and mutilated. Eventually, the local police get fed up with bodies stacking up all over the town and decide to involve themselves.

The script, like the people it depicts, is more than a little schizophrenic. Incredibly violent and gory sequences are buffered by tediously long and boring talky scenes which make the 74 minute running time fly by like it's only a week and a half. And despite the direction's insistence on overly realistic visuals, the script itself is utterly unbelievable.

Take, for example, the scene where Wes first meets the nurse. He's in a bar, drunkenly threatening his buddy with the sharp end of a broken bottle of vodka. Thrown out into the street, he's beaten, robbed and left for dead. A nurse happens to drive by, stop and assist him, taking the unconscious man back to her home. She tends to his wounds, strips him naked and puts him to bed. In the morning, he's hungover and confused as to how he got there and who this woman is; she's wandering around blithely -- as only a horror film character could -- in a see-through nightie. Who on Earth behaves this way?

The ending is also completely ludicrous once the viewer gives more than a moment's worth of rational thought to it. It's a shock ending, but one which can provoke nothing except stunned laughter once the implications of it are thought through.

The production team clearly had no money and therefore many of the scenes suffer, particularly the scenes which do not involve people being hacked to pieces. The romantic subplot is probably the biggest victim. A quick montage of still photographs of two dates running over sappy music represents the totality of a couple's extensive courtship.

In fact the best thing about this film is something that I didn't even notice while I was watching it; only after messing around on the Internet Movie Database did I realize what I had missed. Wes is played by a very young Gerald McRaney. If that name means nothing to you (as it initially did to me), I have two words for you: Major Dad. That's right, Major freaking Dad is playing a psychotic schizophrenic. When I found this out, I immediately went back to rewatch some of his more over the top scenes (of which there are plenty, have no fear). This knowledge led to a much more enjoyable way of experiencing the film.

Apart from such unintended hilarity, there isn't much else to recommend. There's a cameo appearance by a late-1960s rock band called The Bored who, all things considered, aren't a bad group. I could not find any information about them other than this gig; I'm slightly curious as to what became of them. Unfortunately, putting a band with a name like The Bored into your film invites an obvious joke, which I will only allude to and not actually make. (See what I did there?)

So, with Major Dad plus The Bored plus some bloody horror, what does that all add up to? Not a whole lot. If you like scenes of insane young men falling over and battling mental polygons, or sequences of people being cut violently into smaller pieces of person, then you may have yourself a good time. But even so you'll need to keep the fast forward button warm.

Next time on One Dollar DVDs: GOOD AGAINST EVIL with Dack Rambo.

One dollar DVDs: Part 42 (Nancy Drew... Reporter)

2008-09-11T04:22:07Z

Movie title: Nancy Drew... Reporter
Starring: Bonita Granville, Frankie Thomas, John Litel
Director: William Clemens
Writer: Kenneth Gamet
Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama, Family, Mystery
Year: 1939
My rating:
Amazon.com page

The only reason I'm viewing and reviewing NANCY DREW... REPORTER is because I set up a Livejournal poll to determine which one dollar DVD I should select next. The results were counted and the loser was me.

Before firing up the DVD player, I knew I would have a bit of a problem in my encounter with this work. Mostly because I am not in the demographic that this film was initially aimed at. In short, I am not a 13-year-old girl living in the late 1930s. I mean, I'll try anything once, but I just doubt my ability to physically manage this one.

Prior to viewing, I did some basic research to determine if there were any familiar touchstones in connection with this film that I could cling to (translation: I wheeled around the Internet Movie Database for a couple of minutes, looking for names I recognized). The director was not someone familiar to me. William Clemens seems to have directed virtually the same film multiple times, with many of his movies having a similar plot summary to that which is described in his 1942 feature, SWEATER GIRL (the title sounds filthy, but the content probably isn't): "College students attempt to solve a series of murders on campus while also trying to put together the school's big show." I didn't get much of a sense of Clemens' body of work, but I did get the impression that he was good at picking appealing titles for his movies: LADY BODYGUARD, THE CASE OF THE STUTTERING BISHOP, SHE COULDN'T SAY NO and THE FALCON AND THE CO-EDS, to name a few.

The information for the screenwriter was similarly unilluminating. So turning to the actors, I looked up Bonita Granville who plays the eponymous character. I was initially disheartened to see that her final filmed performance was as the uncredited role of 'Woman' in 1981's THE LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER. But further investigation revealed that she'd been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar just two years before NANCY DREW... REPORTER.

Slightly cheered by this information, I placed the DVD into the player, settled down on the loveseat and pressed 'play'.

It was only a few minutes in this movie featuring teenagers of an indeterminate age when I realized that this was indeed going to be silly enough to be enjoyable. During a high speed chase sequence in front of an obvious rear-projection, Nancy spends as much time concentrating on the road as she does holding onto her hat.

The story concerns Nancy Drew becoming a reporter, as you no doubt have already guessed from the title. The editor of the local newspaper has been talked into allowing a group of young people (each one with a massive floppy hat) to work for an unpaid stint of three days. Whoever has written the best story at the end of the time will get a fifty dollar prize and a gold medal (although no promise is made of the article actually getting published). Nancy doesn't have the biggest or the floppiest 1930s hat, but she's a young and plucky determined kid. So she ditches her cheesy human interest assignment and shows up at an inquest.

After the results of the autopsy are broadcast, Nancy is the victim of a seemingly unconnected hit-and-run accident. The conclusion of the subsequent chase sequence is the film's most shocking moment, in which it is revealed that fixing a broken bumper will set Nancy back three dollars and fifty cents.

At this point, we meet the three other main-ish characters: Ted Nickerson, her amiable, but dopey platonic boyfriend; Mary Nickerson, Ted's kid sister; and a child allegedly named Killer Parkins who is Mary's partner-in-crime (presumably his parents named him during Prohibition when they thought a henchman's life would be something positive that their baby could grow into). I should admit now that I'm not extremely well versed in the Nancy Drew mythos so I'm not sure if these characters are from the books or are original to the film. Further, I'm not sure if it really matters.

Also, I should take the opportunity to mention that because of the era's hair and clothing styles, all the kids look like they're in their early thirties including the children who are clearing counting their years in the single digits. (This can be simultaneously humorous and creepy -- case in point, the scene where Nancy's father joyfully wrestles his daughter into bed.) The hairstyles are so full that in one scene Nancy Drew successfully smuggles a 1930s camera into a jail in her hair.

The rest of the movie is full of the pleasant silliness one would expect from a teen-oriented mystery movie of the era. There are dumb police officers, slow-talking heavies, blond molls and clueless adults. At one point Nancy accidentally sends her hapless boyfriend into the ring with a professional boxer. Later, Nancy, Ted and the two troublemaking kids are forced to sing for their dinner when they run short of funds (for some reason, a Chinese restaurant cheerfully accepts the customers singing jazzed-up nursery rhymes in lieu of cash). There's even a police officer in drag, which had me scrambling back to the Internet Movie Database to fruitlessly search for a young Ed Wood in the credits.

If you're in a frivolous enough mood, then this is a decent, enjoyable film. The thing to keep in mind is that it's very much of its time. I'd recommend it if you enjoy eager, non-mentally taxing movies of this style and from this era. On the other hand, if this description has you rolling your eyes in annoyance, then just stay away.

Next time on One Dollar DVDs: The subtly titled, NIGHT OF THE BLOODY HORROR (1969).

Today in politics...

2008-09-08T02:10:21Z

The GOP Convention was weird:

The best ever...

2008-08-13T02:30:39Z

Sport

2008-08-12T05:08:04Z

The Olympics would be a lot better if I didn't need to sleep...

...

2008-08-10T07:03:10Z

Must. Watch. Olympics.

Blind LOLcat

2008-07-30T02:54:06Z

They laughed when I sat down at the keyboard...

2008-07-08T17:41:18Z

Have you seen the well-to-do, up and down Park Avenue?

2008-07-08T03:08:57Z

Bush and Putin on the Ritz

Firefox 3

2008-07-04T16:35:48Z

Initial thought on Firefox 3... I'm not thrilled with what they've done to the URL bar...

ETA: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/6227> Ah, now that's better...