Showing posts with label John Glover. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Glover. Show all posts

Sunday, October 23, 2011

In the Mouth of Madness

While searching Netflix for a horror movie that might have slipped under my radar, I stumbled across In the Mouth of Madness.  The film was directed by John Carpenter, who I occasionally enjoy, and was released in 1995, right around the time when he made the silly but enjoyable Escape From LA and the James Woods-ian Vampires.  A director I enjoy in the midst of a film stretch I like?  That sounds like a reasonable bet.

In the Mouth of Madness begins with John Trent (Sam Neill) being taken to an asylum, where an inquisitive doctor (David Warner) asks to hear his tale.  This doctor also comments on how clever Trent is to cover himself and his cell in black crayon crosses; it's almost like he wants to stay in the psych ward.
He doesn't look crazy at all, does he?
The rest of the story is told in an extended flashback.  Trent is an insurance investigator that has a talent for sniffing out fraud.  He is hired by a literary publisher (Charlton Heston) to find his missing golden goose, the ridiculously successful fantasy/horror author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow).  Cane has disappeared just before turning in what promises to be his most successful (and, perhaps, final) script.  Trent, along with Cane's editor, Linda (Julie Carmen), begins to investigate.  At first, the investigation seems to go nowhere.  Trent can't see any angle to explain Cane's disappearance if the publisher is legitimately worried about its author.  Things start to fall into place as Trent begins to read some of Cane's work; it appears to be a blend of H.P. Lovecraft themes with a little Stephen King mixed in.  While engrossed in the books, Trent begins to experience symptoms that many Cane readers also suffer: hallucinations, lost time, and difficulty identifying reality.
Things only get more surreal when Trent has an epiphany; through a laughably convoluted scenario, Trent comes to the conclusion that Sutter Cane is hiding in a hidden town that is named after the fictional setting for his stories.  Oddly enough, Trent appears to be right; but is the town based on the fiction, or are the books based on the town?

The acting in In the Mouth of Madness is a little odd.  I like Sam Neill just fine, although I occasionally questioned his accent.  The rest of the cast, though...I'm less sure of.  Julie Carmen doesn't seem to match the script very well, playing a pretty boring character, even when things take a turn to the fantastic.  Jürgen Prochnow does his best to play up to the maniacal gatekeeper his character is written as, but it's a surprisingly non-sinister role that could have used more depth.  Also, his hair was distracting.
Evil is sometimes fluffy
David Warner was wasted in a role that amounted to little more than a cameo.  Ditto for John Glover.  If you have a sharp eye, you can spot the film debut of Hayden Christensen, although his part consists of a kid who thinks Neill is acting weird.
The obvious successor to Jake Lloyd

This is the third and final chapter in what John Carpenter refers to as his Apocalypse Trilogy; as far as I can tell, they are unrelated  except for the depressing endings (the other two are The Thing and Prince of Darkness).  The more I see of Carpenter's work, the more I appreciate him.  That's not to say that the man doesn't disappoint from time to time, but he is consistent in his own way.  For instance, In the Mouth of Madness is yet another plot-driven film with a largely unimpressive cast and some solid special effects.  One of the downsides to this film is that Carpenter chooses to only give glimpses of the underlying horror in the movie, instead of glorifying in it, like he does in The Thing.
Take a good look, because this is all you get

My problem with In the Mouth of Madness is with the story.  For starters, I don't particularly enjoy metafiction; I think it is usually used by less talented writers to disguise the depth of bad scripts.  This movie didn't change my opinion.  The fact that it is mentioned early and often that Sutter Cane's fans frequently believe that his fictional world is reality makes it a foregone conclusion that In the Mouth of Madness will eventually get to the question of "What is reality?"  That's a respectable theme, but John Carpenter isn't the director for it, and this isn't the script to explore it with.  There isn't a twist.  You see the basic developments miles away, and that negates the alleged cleverness of the concept.

There are some good little moments here and there --- the makeup is good (when glimpsed) and I thought the insane asylum Carpenters (the band) joke was hilarious --- but there's just so much clumsiness.  For instance, Trent concludes that Sutter Cane is in New Hampshire by noticing a common red line on all of Cane's paperback covers; if you arrange the red lines just right, they make the outline of New Hampshire.  First of all, what makes someone look at a tiny snippet of a line and think, "Hey, that looks Hampshirian!"  Second, how many other shapes could have been made, using the images on those book covers?  Honestly, I don't care to know the answer.  This isn't an awful film, but it sets the bar high and doesn't come close to meeting it.  I'll give it credit for ambition, but the execution simply isn't there.


While researching this film, I stumbled across a blog that featured art for Criterion Collection DVD covers for movies that haven't been selected for the Criterion Collection yet.  Does In the Mouth of Madness deserve the Crtierion treatment?  Definitely not.  Still, this is a pretty cool cover.




Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Scrooged


When reading up on the production of Scrooged, I learned that this was the first movie that Bill Murray starred in after Ghostbusters --- that's four years of his prime that he spent out of the limelight.  Usually, when a comedian takes that long of a break, they never get their groove back (Dana Carvey, I'm looking at you).  Then again, Bill Murray is an unusual guy, so it should not be surprising that his career has been just as odd.

Scrooged is an updated-for-the-80s version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.  In fact, Frank Cross (Bill Murray) is a television executive that is masterminding a multimillion dollar live broadcast of Dickens' classic on Christmas Eve.  If you know the story of Scrooge, then you know the gist of the story.  Frank is an absolute bastard and a tyrannical boss, so his late boss (John Forsythe) reaches from beyond the grave to warn Frank to change his ways or be eternally damned.  That evening, Frank is visited by the ghosts of Christmases past, present and future.  But will he learn from his extra-special extrasensory night, or will he dismiss it as the effects from "Russian vodka poisoned by Chernobyl?"  Obviously, since this is a Christmas story and it is based on one of the enduring Christmas classics, radioactive vodka (distilled from tear-soaked turnips) ends up playing an important part and Frank eventually mutates into the Toxic Avenger.  Or he lives happily ever after and is forgiven by everyone for years of abuse after just one evening of sincere regret.

Like most movies starring Bill Murray, the focus of this film is definitely on him.  However, this film has its share of of noteworthy supporting roles.  In a normal movie, you would suppose that the romantic interest (Karen Allen) or the nemeses at work (Robert Mitchum as Frank's increasingly loopy boss and John Glover as his competition) would provide the bulk of the film's drama and depth.  Here, not so much.  All three did a decent job, but were nothing special.  No, in A Christmas Carol (and, therefore, in this update), the key supporting characters are the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present.  Both are unusual roles, since neither has any character development and both basically just guide Frank through time and space while doing some narration, but both manage to steal scenes away from Bill Murray, which is quite a feat.  David Johansen (lead singer of the New York Dolls) is perfect as the seedy, cigar-smoking, cab-driving Ghost of Christmas Past, and he clearly has a blast in every scene.  Johansen would be the surprise of this movie if Carol Kane wasn't so awesome as the Ghost of Christmas Present.  Making her into a physically abusive sadist might be an unusual take on the character, but Kane plays it up with such childlike glee that it's fun to watch her beat the living hell out of Frank.

Also worth noting is Grace (Alfre Woodard), who serves as the stand-in for the Bob Cratchet character and provides maybe the most emotional depth to the film; on the flip side of Grace's put-upon-but-still-valued role, Eliot (Bobcat Goldthwait) is the angry, unappreciated version of Bob Cratchet that decides that going postal will solve his problems.  This movie has a lot of cameo appearances and bit roles, too.  Miles Davis and Paul Shaffer play street musicians; Brian Doyle-Murray and his brothers, John and Joel Murray, play Frank's father, brother, and a random dude, respectively; Robert Goulet, Lee Majors, Mary Lou Retton, and John Houseman all played themselves; and even the television broadcast within the movie had stars like Buddy Hackett and Jamie Farr.

Juggling all those noteworthy actors was probably a task in and of itself, but director Richard Donner did a good job.  Aside from finding recognizable faces for every important role (except for the Tiny Tim analogue) and getting them to fill their bit parts admirably, he also managed to do some pretty imaginative things with the special effects in the film.  The Ghost of Christmas Future looked pretty cool with his "ribcage of the damned" and sometimes-but-not-always television face.  The makeup on the deceased John Forsythe was pretty awesome, too.  In fact, the only thing in this movie that doesn't look good is Frank's hair in the flashback scenes.

Apparently, "Scrooged" translates into
"Chief Attack Ghosts" in Spanish
I have two problems with this film, and the first deals with Bill Murray.  I love Bill Murray.  He's awesomely funny and has developed into a talented dramatic actor.  That said, he basically plays himself in just about every movie until Rushmore.  This can be a good thing; Murray is always funny, even in his bad movies, and he is let loose for a good portion of this film.  Unfortunately, he and Donner decided that Frank Cross had to be unlikable at the film's start so that he could transform by the film's end.  That sounds fine --- Scrooge isn't a nice guy, either --- but in execution, it's a little too much.  There's certainly some black humor in Murray's quieter moments in the first quarter of the film, but when he's screaming, he's just screaming.  The likable jerk that Murray plays so well doesn't show up in these scenes; instead, we are treated to Murray being mean and not deflecting anything with a smirk or self-deprecating joke.  I like the rest of Murray's performance, but I think there are a lot of missed comedic opportunities in the "before" phase of this movie.

My other gripe has more to do with the source material than anything else, but I suppose you should shift some blame to the screenwriters, too.  I'll be honest with you...I hate Charles Dickens.  Well, maybe not the man, but definitely his writing.  His style is overly wordy (because he was paid by the word), his characters are unrecognizable as human beings, and his plots are usually contrived.  I will credit him with some pretty good high concepts, but that's the only way I have found to appreciate Dickens --- by stripping his stories down to their bare bones and then imagining a more amusing tale from there.  [Steps off soapbox.]  Personally, I find the emotional part of this story to be a little insulting.  Frank is mean for years and then wins everyone over immediately?  That seems far too saccharine to coexist in a film with moments of black comedy.  I readily admit to being a soft touch with Christmas movies --- I'm a hot mess of tears, snot and giggles for the entire running time of It's a Wonderful Life --- but the happy ending to Scrooged is too abrupt, too shallow, and/or maybe too overreaching to move even an easy mark like me.  "But it's the source material's fault, Brian!"  Whatever.  If they changed the story to modernize it, they could have tried to make it a little more plausible or a little more emotional.

Don't get me wrong --- I love me some Scrooged.  I watch it every year and I laugh at all the same parts ("It's a bone, you lucky dog!" gets me every time, for some unknown reason), but this is a movie with some fundamental flaws to it.  This might be the least heartwarming Christmas movie I have ever seen, but Murray's charm and the combination of Kane and Johansen always bring me back, year after year.