Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

It's tough being a B-movie.  You have tiny budgets, no-name directors, and a cast of nobodys --- or just as bad, a star that is hilariously past their prime.  If a cast member or the director of a B-movie becomes famous, their B-movie past is usually snickered at and derided.  However, John Carpenter did some of his best work with small budgets and relatively unknown casts, so I figured that Assault on Precinct 13 could be pretty good, even if it was only Carpenter's second effort as a director.

The very first thing that struck me about this movie is its score.

As is his custom, John Carpenter wrote the score, as well as writing and directing this movie. It's not magical or sweeping, like something from John Williams or Danny Elfman, but it's pretty ominous for 70s synthesizer music and I think it still stands the test of time.

On his first day working after a promotion, Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) is asked to babysit the all-but-officially closed down Precinct 9, District 13 (the title is amusingly inaccurate) police precinct in Anderson, Los Angeles.  I'm not sure if Anderson was ever a real neighborhood in LA (I can't find anything to confirm or deny it), but in this movie, it is a gang-infested ghetto.  Normally, this kind of assignment would be pretty dull --- answering phones, directing people to the new precinct, that sort of thing --- but Bishop and his skeleton crew (two secretaries and a police captain) is in luck.  And by "luck," I mean "a lot of trouble."

The first sign that the night will be a little unusual is when a prison transport truck stops by.  Officer Starker (Charles Cyphers) is forced to stop at Precinct 9 because one of his prisoners is extremely sick and possibly contagious.  He takes sick boy into a holding cell and does the same for Wells (Tony Burton) and the death-row-bound Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston).  That would be unusual enough, but things are about to go from "unusual" to "terrifying" in a matter of minutes.

The day before, the LAPD ambushed and killed several members of the Street Thunder gang; it seemed pretty unsportsmanlike at the time, but both sides were more than adequately armed.  The Street Thunder then made a blood oath to go nuts on the city, particularly the LAPD.  They call this blood oath the "cholo," which confused me for a while, but I suppose the meaning has changed over time.

This movie has no awkward dancing, I promise.

Anyway, the Street Thunder started their day with the intention of stirring things up --- TO DEATH!!!  They pulled out some ridiculously heavy artillery (for a list of weapons, check out the imfdb, the existence of which kind of weirds me out) and decided to go kill...an ice cream man?  Um.  Okaaay.  That's pretty random.  Only moments before, a little girl had gotten a cone from that ice cream man, but realized it was the wrong flavor, so she went back to complain.  Sorry, sister, your timing is awful.  The gang member shoots the kid dead.  Now, you may assume that this was an off-screen kill, something that was implied.  Nope.

She dead.

Distraught, the girl's father manages to shoot and kill the gang member.  While that surprised everyone for a moment, the father came to his senses and ran to the nearest police station for protection.  The good news is that he found one nearby, the bad news is that station is Precinct 9, Division 13.  So, the Street Thunder, who already have a general mission to kill people on this particular day now have a particular target (civilian dad) and an intriguing location (a nearly abandoned police station in a bad neighborhood).  You know when people talk about the wrong place at the wrong time?  This is the sort of place and time they're talking about.

If you're familiar with John Carpenter movies, then you probably know the kind of acting in store for you here.  Carpenter is certainly not a bad director, with respects to how he handles the talent, but many of his movies are more about the plot than the acting.  Such is the case here.  Austin Stoker is fine as the heroic lead, but he's nothing special.  Instead, the movie focuses more on the outlaw hero of the film, Darwin Joston.  Joston's character is shockingly calm throughout the movie, despite the threat of death constantly hanging over his head, from both the gang and the state; his delivery is very droll, monotone even, and reminded me of Ron Livingston in Office Space.  I would have loved Joston's character if he ever had a line of dialogue that wasn't a quip; his recurring "got a smoke" line felt out of place and was kind of annoying.  The rest of the cast was fine, if unspectacular.  Frequent Carpenter collaborator Charles Cyphers (the sheriff from Halloween) gave a typically appropriate performance as a not particularly nice transport guard.  Ron Livingston, of Rocky fame, was solid as a high-strung prisoner that didn't want to die.  The two secretaries, Nancy Loomis and Laurie Zimmer, were also decent in their roles.  You might have noticed that I haven't mentioned any gang members.  None of them have any dialogue and, aside from the one who shot the girl and was killed, none really stick out in my memory.

Prisoners smell bad, apparently.

John Carpenter did a fantastic job making this movie as good as it is with what he had t work with.  The pace is good, the special effects (such as they are) are believable, and the writing...well, the dialogue isn't great.  The story is good, though, and that's what matters.  You might recognize the basic idea behind Assault on Precinct 13 --- heroic policeman fighting off a large opposing force with little to no help --- from the classic Western Rio Bravo.  From what I can tell, that comparison was intentional; Carpenter, who edited the film, gave the credit to John T. Chance, the character John Wayne played in Rio Bravo.  With that classic film as inspiration, Carpenter was able to update this simple concept and turn it into a thriller.  With a no-name cast, everyone is expendable and there are more than a few shocking moments in this movie.

If you want proof, look no further than the ice cream girl getting shot.  Kids don't get killed in horror movies, much less action movies (unless it provides motivation to the main character early in the film).  That was a shocking scene to include in the film, but it was downright ballsy to actually show the girl getting shot on screen.  That scene alone makes this movie worth seeing.

The lack of any dialogue between gang members is interesting.  Just shooting the girl would make them monstrous, but they never talk.  It's almost like they're not human, which makes them all the more intimidating as movie villains.  This was a brilliant choice by Carpenter.

Assault on Precinct 13 is generally referred to as an action movie, but it doesn't quite fit into the typical action movie formula.  Maybe that is because action movies weren't really being made at the time; sure, you could have war movies or detective stories with action, but most of those movies are about the drama between shootouts.  This film is about the tension between waves of gang members attacking.  Yes, there's a lot of action in the movie, but the focus is really on how the characters inside can work together to survive.

The only thing that limits the awesomeness of this movie is the script.  I like the story, I thought the acting was fine, and I like John Carpenter's direction.  I don't particularly like any of the characters or dialogue.  In fact, I was constantly annoyed by Joston's dialogue, and his character was definitely the coolest and most interesting out of the bunch.  Despite all that, I really enjoyed this movie.  Most of the time, B-movies have small budgets and no talent because they are destined to suck, but every so often a B-movie like this shows how much a talented director can get out of limiting circumstances.

Halloween (1978)

Driving through the great state of Illinois, outside of Chicago and its suburbs, can be pretty dull.  As part of the Great Plains, any trip that goes from end to end of the state is going to be dreadfully boring, unless you have some sort of corn fetish.  Little did I realize that I have come this close to danger on my trips; just off Interstate 55, near the city of Pontiac (whose website proudly points out public restrooms and a "Most Wanted" list) lies the fictional town of Haddenfield, best known as the home town of slasher movie Hall of Famer Michael Myers.

Halloween begins, against all odds, on Halloween night (shock!) in Haddonfield, 1963.  A young girl and her boyfriend decide to go up to her bedroom and get their sexy freak on, as long as someone named Michael is away.  The camera is clearly serving as the point of view of a character watching the couple; in the time it takes this unseen character (admittedly, probably Michael) to move from his place, peering in from an outside window, where he hears this exchange, to the kitchen, where he grabs a knife, the guy has already finished, dressed, and leaves the house with a noncommittal remark about maybe calling the girl again sometime; this scientifically proves, once again, that the speed of light's got nothing on the speed of a teenage boy.  After Don Juan (possibly not the real one) sneaks out the door, the unseen character picks up a clown mask, puts it on, and walks up the stairs to the girl's bedroom.  The girl, brushing her hair while nearly nude, identifies the character as Michael and swiftly dies from several knife wounds.  Moments later, the girl's parents come home and we finally get a camera shot of the savage Michael; he is a six year-old boy, dressed in a very ugly clown outfit, and he has just murdered his own sister, thus fulfilling the desire of many younger brothers, across the world.

On the bright side, it appears to be stain-repellant

Fast forward fifteen years, and it is 1978.  After eight years of trying to treat young Michael Myers, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) concluded that Michael is a soulless killing machine and has spent the last seven years trying to ensure that Michael stays in confinement for the rest of his life.  Because, you know...that's what doctors do.

That sounds reasonable

On Halloween's eve, 1978, Michael escapes from the Smith's Grove institution, steals a car, and drives off into the night.  Convinced that he knows Michael better than anyone --- despite the fact that Myers has not spoken a word in fifteen years --- Dr. Loomis heads to Haddonfield, expecting the worst.  Meanwhile, Michael has already arrived in Haddonfield and has even broken into his old home, now the local haunted house.  He also made a shopping stop during the night, breaking into a general store and stealing a mask, some knives and a rope.  Exactly what his motives are is never clear, but it is obvious that he is in town to pull some major They Live action.  He is a picky psychopath, though.  Instead of killing just anyone, Michael chooses to stalk a well-behaved teenager, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, in her first film role).  Sucks to be her.

That...is just an unflattering screenshot

There are two aspects of this film that really stand out.  The first is the music.  Director John Carpenter also composed the film's score, which includes the main theme (which acts as a cue that Michael is around and about to be creepy/evil), as well as the slightly less creepy through line that seems to follow Laurie around when she's not in danger.  Most horror movies have mediocre and often instantly dated scores, but Carpenter created one of the best musical mood pieces in cinematic history.  The music is classier and more unsettling than the Friday the 13th CH-Ch-ch AH-Ah-ah, and strong enough to follow Michael Myers into every one of his sequels.  The camera work is the other noteworthy technical part of Halloween.  In the opening scene POV shots (which, while done well, has been done before), it was an inspired idea to have the character don a mask and then have the camera see only through the eye holes of the mask.  The rest of the movie is only nearly POV, with the camera actually just peeking over Michael's shoulder.  This is far more effective than POV shots because it is more stable; this way, you aren't supposed to always know where Michael is and can still be surprised when he pops up.

...like in a closet.  For the record, he's looking for a crushed velvet jumpsuit.

The acting and directing in Halloween are much better than you might expect, especially if you have seen the sequels.  Jamie Lee Curtis wasn't spectacular in the film, aside from her Scream Queen shrieks, but she was as good here as anything else I've seen her in.  Donald Pleasence is very good as the not-overreacting-at-all Doctor Loomis; he gives such a good speech about the evil of Michael Myers that you don't really need any proof to back up those claims.  The supporting cast isn't great, with PJ Soles as the only stand out, partly because she is awesome at saying "totally" and partly because she shows her boobies.

Totally!

The direction is the real star in this picture.  John Carpenter took the story that he co-wrote with Debra Hill and shot it in a way that provides suspense and implies violence.  The violence in this film looks great, but a lot of it is not shown; you don't notice that, though, when you're watching the movie.  When it needs to be spectacular, it is (like the mounting of a guy on the kitchen wall), but the subtler moments are still the more memorable ones.  In the kitchen scene, it's pretty sweet when Myers kills the guy, but the creepy moment comes as he steps back and tilts his head, pondering his victim's death twitches.  Those are the moments that make Michael Myers, as an unimaginably evil character, work.  That's important, because the character has some pretty ridiculous survival skills; he manages to get stabbed in the neck, eye, and chest, shot in the chest, and he falls out of a two-story window, but he still keeps chugging.

Read the directions, Laurie: stab repeatedly, until victim is definitely fertilizer

While totally awesome, this movie does have some minor flaws.  For starters, the POV camera in the opening scene is clearly being held at an adult height, despite Michael being only six at the time.  That's not a big deal, but I refuse to believe that a six year-old that can hack his sister to death for no reason would allow anyone to dress him in that ugly costume.  I mean, unless his sister dressed him; in that case, she had it coming.  Still, that was a pretty cool scene, even if it was done just to add a tiny bit of shock when the killer is revealed to be a child.  Another strange part comes when Michael stalks the boy Laurie is going to babysit that night; how would Michael know who the kid is?  If it's just Michael being Michael (read: creepy), then why don't we see him stalk anyone not connected to Laurie?  Another odd moment comes when viewers catch a glimpse of Michael without his mask on; he's nowhere near as frightening when he looks like an ordinary guy.

Also odd: when he took a bathroom break and was out of position for this kill

Probably the biggest gripe I have with the movie is the prototypical slasher "ending," where Laurie seemingly kills Michael, but decides it's better to walk away than to check to see if he's dead.  She does that twice.  The first time I can understand because she has never tried to kill someone before, but horror movies have steep learning curves --- you already smoked pot in this movie (a slasher pic deadly sin), Laurie, so you had better get your game face on if you want my sympathy.

Despite those minor flaws, this is still a great movie that holds up to repeated viewings.  Actually, those flaws become amusing and charming to those who are familiar with the movie.  I may be a bigger fan of Jason Voorhies, but this is the movie that truly gave birth to the slasher subgenre and still towers over it to this day.