Short Attention Span Review: Poltergeist (1982)

Short Attention Span Review: Poltergeist (1982)

So often, conversations regarding Poltergeist center on alleged curses and the question of who exactly directed the picture.  These are interesting threads to tug on, to be sure, and I'll touch on them here, but what is often overlooked in these discussions is just how incredible the movie itself is.  Nearly forty years after it was released, this exciting spookshow remains one of the genre's most energetic efforts.  It has everything one could hope for, to include a great cast of performers, phenomenal effects, a fine script, an eerie score, and sound direction.  Pacing is one of its biggest assets, as it begins quaintly enough, and then the suspense and fear are continually elevated until it reaches a bombastic conclusion.  It's also a fun horror picture, with ample doses of humor and wonder sprinkled throughout what could be dubbed a master class in the art of the jump scare.  As for those pressing questions, well, I've never been a big believer in curses on film sets myself, and any doubts about who actually directed the picture don't give me an awful lot of pause.  Spielberg was admittedly on set for a lot of the production, and was far more involved than most producers would have been.  There is no doubt that his fingerprints are all over the movie.  However, there are certainly elements that remind me more of director Tobe Hooper's work, so I view Poltergeist as a most successful collaboration.  The neat thing about this partnership (and one of the key elements to this film's longevity) is the way this bridges two separate worlds.  I think those who are looking for a mysterious adventure with a lot of otherworldy delights up its sleeve and an underlying sense of wonder running throughout will find a lot to love with this one.  I also think that old school horror fans who dig ghastly shenanigans and things that creep through the darkness will be equally pleased with this frightful romp.  It may be a bit too much for the E.T. crowd and it may be far too tame for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre crowd, but there's a lot of area to cover between those pictures, and anyone who resides in that terrain is apt to peg Poltergeist as one of their favorite horror films.  I actually consider myself a proud member of both camps, and I enjoy Poltergeist immensely.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.

Final Grade: A

Poltergeist remains a vivid scarefest that grows more and more exciting as it nears its stupendous climax.

Short Attention Span Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

Short Attention Span Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a minor classic that benefits largely from the raw look and feel of the piece, giving it an authenticity that makes it seem like the closest thing to a snuff film you're apt to find on Netflix.  As such, it isn't a picture I like to revisit, and most of the entries in this ongoing series are equally grim affairs that fall well short of the high water mark Tobe Hooper set with the original in 1974.  Hooper himself only revisited the material as a director with this 1986 sequel.  While many were completely turned off by its goofy tone and flamboyant characters at the time it was released, it has earned quite a reputation as a cult classic and remains a personal favorite of mine.  Unlike most sequels, the body count doesn't grow exponentially, and in fact The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 probably sports one of the lowest body counts that you're apt to find in a gory slasher flick.  Even if there aren't bodies piling up on the screen, there is an abundance of blood and guts on display, and Tom Savini's practical effects are amazing.  The surreal set design is just as impressive, and the characters are mostly caricatures.  The acting fits the bizarro tone nicely, with Bill Moseley and Dennis Hopper competing to see who can give the most ridiculous performance in the picture.  Moseley is equal parts hilarious and disgusting as the villainous Chop-Top, while Hopper plays Lieutenant Lefty Enright, a Texas Ranger who is both a righteous avenger and a bloodthirsty lunatic who may just be crazier than Leatherface.  In many ways, these sensational elements join together to make The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 a cartoonish chiller, and while it's easy enough to see how that could rub many people the wrong way, I love it.  In closing, I should also note that the score is fabulous, the ending is killer, and all the dark humor in play makes this a bizarre treat that is worth revisiting often.     

Final Grade: A

The MVP of this gonzo sequel has to be Bill Moseley, whose Chop-Top is a grotesque nutjob who is just  as amusing as he is disgusting.

Jaws by Peter Benchley

I'm reading Jaws.  Again.

Seriously, my paperback is held together by scotch tape and love at this point.  I have a hard time deciding which of the books I hold so dear is actually my favorite.  It's probably the book you've read the most, right?  If that's true, it's either Jaws or 'Salem's Lot.  Either way, the heat of summer is here and I'm hanging with Brody and Quint once again.  I'm happy to hang with Hooper whenever I watch the movie, but he's kind of a prick in the book.  For those who don't know, I'm not offering up any spoilers (unless Hooper being a dick counts) but the book is rather different from the movie.  There are more deaths, there are entire subplots that didn't make it to the cinema, different characterizations, and most importantly, a completely different (and superior) climax.

Recently, I concluded a review of Dan Brown's Inferno by noting that Inferno = Shitburger.  That was accurate.  On a similar note, Jaws = Goldburger.

Which Jaws has the bigger bite?

While I'm resurrecting old bits, here's the first piece I published in RVA Magazine.  It's a comparison of Steven Spielberg's film and Peter Benchley's book.  It's brief, but since that there are few (if any) tales that I enjoy more, it's something I had a lot of fun with.  Enjoy!

Which Jaws has the bigger bite?

It’s a true anomaly: a stellar book is optioned by Hollywood and brought to the screen in epic fashion, surpassing the source text in the eyes of many.  For once, fans of either format can sit and ponder the merits of these beloved blockbusters, engaged in a difficult debate.  Which version has the sharpest teeth? 

            When Peter Benchley wrote his signature novel, he ignited the literary world with a gripping “Man vs. Nature” opus that plunges the reader into a marine nightmare on the first page and never looks back.  Benchley based his work on an actual series of attacks on the East Coast attributed to a single shark and this gives his plot a potent dose of realism.  The characters are well drawn, the setting is perfect, and the prose is both rhythmic and knowledgeable, a delicate balancing act performed to perfection here.

            Steven Spielberg took Benchley’s book to tinseltown and frightened audiences across the country out of the water with his amped-up approach and an explosively different climax (literally) that won the author over despite some initial conflict.  Young Spielberg was willing to take more chances and it shows, this stark and scary picture is a far cry from the family fare the director is also known for.  Here, his ambition and ability join forces with an exceptional cast to land an instant classic.  Give an assist to John Williams, the famed film composer who supplied one of cinema’s grandest scores.

            Since there can be no doubt that both versions of this tale have touched countless lives, a prominent question arises: which is the better fishing trip to go on?  Unfortunately, this is a query that simply cannot be answered.  The two visions vary enough that it simply will not work if one attempts to compare and contrast them.  Prominent characters and subplots within the novel didn’t make it before the cameras, most notably an extramarital sexual encounter between Matt Hooper and Ellen Brody that charges the third act of the book with blistering tension as three men take to the sea in pursuit of one of nature’s most violent killers.  Alas, who can forget Robert Shaw’s incredible monologue regarding his service on the Indianapolis, a plot device Spielberg originated and a setpiece the actor ran wild with.  There is also the conclusion to consider, as well as the fact that a primary character who survives on celluloid perishes in print.

            This is all a blessing, as those who know and love the story have two separate experiences to enjoy, both of which are frequently cited as favorites by bookworms and film buffs alike.