Semiquincentennial Movie Project #31: The Giant Spider Invasion

 

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

Week #31: Wisconsin -

 

 

The state of Wisconsin was established on May 29, 1848.

Details about Wisconsin:

State bird: robin    

State flower: wood violet

State tree: sugar maple

Additional historical trivia:

Two Rivers is the birthplace of the ice cream sundae. Note: this claim is contested, but the city does date the invention of the sundae at it's earliest date here.

The iconic cheese head you see at Green Bay Packers games actually debuted at a Milwaukee Brewers game.  

You can thank John J. Blaine, a senator from Wisconsin, for introducing the bill that finally repealed Prohibition, making it legal to sell alcohol again.

Quite possibly an intentional marketing ploy if you ask me, but for a brief time in 2009 an exit sign in Wisconsin had every word on it spelled wrong except "exit".  (Might not have even been exit #185, for all I know...)

 

On the "beware your neighbor" side, both Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer, two infamous serial killers were from Wisconsin. 

 The iconic TV shows Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were set in Milwaukee. (Additionally, That 70's Show was set in a fictional town in Wisconsin.) 

Famous people born in Wisconsin: Orson Welles, Gene Wilder, Laura Ingalls Wilder (of Little House on the Prairie fame), Liberace, astronaut Deke Slayton, Oscar "Happy" Felsch (one of the infamous "Black Sox" who threw the 1919 World Series) and Bob Uecker.  

 

The Giant Spider Invasion (1975): 

What's scarier than a little spider?

A bigger spider.

And what's scarier than a bigger spider? 

A spider that's grown to gigantic proportions, of course.

But you know what's not scary?

A Volkswagen Beetle decked out with legs to look like a giant spider....

I honestly don't know if this movie was meant to be taken seriously as a horror movie or not. After all, in the opening scene, we witness a cheesy shot of what is supposed to look look like a UFO (but actually more resembles a blue PEZ pellet) flashing across space. 

 

we zoom in on a small town where the sheriff, Sheriff Jones (Alan Hale, Jr.) is working at his desk, when in walks Dave (Kevin Brodie). The Skipper (I mean "the sheriff") greets him with a "Hi, little buddy!" and Gilligan (I mean "Dave") and he talk about a revival going on later.

It's nice to finally be off that island

 

Dave has a date with Terry (Diane Lee Hart). The Sheriff warns him that fooling around with Terry might not be a good idea because her brother-in-law Dan (Robert Easton), is not one to get on the wrong side of. But Dan is a good guy... he actually went to a revival. Ummm... no he didn't. But that's what he told his wife, Ev (Leslie Parrish).

Not tonight, honey. I have a bug...

 

When he comes back home, Ev doesn't believe his story.  But Ev has been doing exactly the same thing that Dan has been doing... fooling around with someone else. While they are discussing their fictional evenings the UFO from the opening sequence crashes in their back forty. But Dan says whatever it was will wait until morning.

Dan and Ev are not the typical happily married couple. Some of the best lines come from one or the other during this film.

Ev: "Sometimes the only way I know you're alive is when I hear you flush the toilet!" 

Dan: "You're so dumb, you wouldn't know rabbit turds from Rice Krispies."

 

These Rice Krispies taste funny, Ev...

Meanwhile a physicist at the nearby observatory notices some peculiar increases in gamma radiation in the area. Dr. Langer (Barbara Hale) calls in help to investigate this mysterious phenomenon. NASA sends out Dr. Vance (Steve Brodie, who, BTW, is the father of the actor playing Dave, in case you were wondering...). 

Just a typical family get together

 

Out at the farm Ev and Dan check out where the crash occurred. They don't find a UFO, but they find a couple of mutilated cows, which the unscrupulous Dan plans to chop up and sell to the owner of the local diner. They also find a bunch of meteorites. When Dan opens one up he finds... diamonds! (And a tarantula, but he doesn't see that). And quicker than you can say Spider Robinson Dan gets $$$ in his eyes.  

Later, when searching for more meteorites, Dan finds a dead body. He secretly buries the body, but he tells Ev they can't tell the sheriff because he'll find  out about the meteorites and diamonds. Of course, he'll also find out that one of their cash crops is a kind of grass that the sheriff would find not entirely orthodox...

The movie trudges along as just a normal spider movie (well, as normal as a "spiders from space" can hope to achieve. But the problem is we have a movie called The GIANT Spider Invasion. So, unless there are thousands of meteorites, that invasion is going to be pretty tame, don't ya think?

But (finally)  40 minutes into the movie we get some larger spiders. And the jump scares for this portion are worthy of pushing this movie from the "laugh riot" side of film into horror/monster film, as Ev is attacked in her farm house by a couple of big bear sized spiders. 

Meanwhile our intrepid doctors are scoping out the area and theorize that a miniature black hole crashed into Earth outside Dan's farm. (And every real scientist watching this movie is about to have a brain hemorrhage.) The whole theory is that that is where this invasion of spiders is coming from; essentially this miniature black hole opened a rift in the space-time continuum, I guess. What it looks more like to me is that the scriptwriters just did a scan of a few scientific articles and took words that sounded "science-y" and molded a story around it.

(Now, I will interject here that some scientists theorize that the Great Tunguska Fireball was the result of a miniature black hole falling to Earth, but to date no one has seen gigantic spiders in the region).

It takes 50 minutes before we see the really large spider come out of the ground. At first, the spider looks halfway decent. But as hinted in the introduction, eventually the film has to give us some long shots of the spider, and despite some fairly decent music to enhance the scare tactics of this "spider from Mars" (or wherever it's supposed to be from), it basically looks like what it is; a car with spider legs attached to it.

Well, a "beetle" and a spider are both insects, anyway...

 

Of course, when it becomes known that there is a giant predator on the loose, every redneck in town with a gun or a slingshot starts thinking, "hell, that's nothing we can take it", despite the Sheriff trying to convince them to let the authorities take care of it. And then, from out of nowhere, there's a....

CARNIVAL!

You heard that right, folks! Smorgasbord for the giant spider made to order, I guess....

Panic at the carousel

 

Ultimately the scientists decide that the solution is to set up some kind of device that will (hopefully) seal off the black hole so that nothing else can come through, and in the process kill any of the creatures that already have come through.

This movie is absolutely bonkers. The highlight for me is the preacher (Tain Bodkin). Remember the revival that Dan was supposed to be going to? Well, that preacher keeps popping up now and then spouting end of the world predictions. The final line from the film is the preacher expostulating:

"When pharaoh refused the children of Israel their right to exist, the heavens opened up and deluged the land with flies, frogs, lice and locusts! It happened before and it will happen again!" 

 Believe it or not, this film actually made a profit. Not entirely unreasonable since it was made for only about $300,000 (and most of that was probably spent on the spiders...) It made, by different accounts, either $3 million or $15 million at the box office. It doesn't have enough reviews to receive a rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but another website, the Popcornmeter, rates it at 14%. One review quoted on wikipedia calls it "self-subconsciously ludicrous". 

For entertainment value, it's a hoot (if you look at it as a comedy). But since I think it was actually supposed to be a serious horror movie I'd have to say, except for a serious sufferer of arachnophobia, it's not all that scary. The music does try it's best to enhance the scary parts, but even then it's sometimes lacking. However, give it a try. 

Until next time folks, drive safely.

Quiggy

 

 

Bingeworthy: Episode 2 (Sherlock)

 

The Bingeworthy series was created in 2026, as an homage to some of my favorite TV shows, once that I can sit through multiple episodes in one sitting (what the cognoscenti call "binging"). Each entry will cover several episodes that I think make the series worth binging. Sometimes I will vary it by picking one episode per season to highlight and other times I will just select a few outstanding episodes. (This will be especially important if a series went on for many years... I don't think ANYONE wants to see a 10+ episode post of a 10+ season highlight...) 

 

 

Bingeworthy: Episode 2: Sherlock (2010-17)

Note: I gave some brief thought to just reprinting an earlier blog entry dedicated to Sherlock, but after reading it I decided to go this route instead. If you would like to see that earlier entry, then have at it through the link above.

 

Most everyone knows about Sherlock Holmes. Over the years there have been numerous movies and TV shows featuring the beloved character. Count Dracula holds the record for most appearances in film (about 270, according to AI). But Sherlock comes in at a close second (with 254, again according to AI). As I stated in the fist blog entry I did for this series, the Holmes character was often subject to the whims of the film industry, sometimes being wedged into more modern (at the time) scenarios. 

I have in my book collection a book titled Sherlock Holmes on Screen. My copy is a first edition published in 2001, but a newer edition, updated in 2012, is available. (My first edition copy came out before the Robert Downey, Jr. iteration of the character and the BBC TV series I will discuss today.) 

Holmes, it turns out, is not just limited to appearances in British and American film. He has appeared in German productions, such as Der Hund von Baskerville (The Hound of Baskerville), Danish productions, such as Det Hemmelige Dokument (The Secret Document), Chinese productions, such as Fu Er Mo Si Yu Zhong Guo Nu Xia (Sherlock Holmes and the Chinese Heroine), Russian productions, such as Priklyucheniya Sherlocka Kholmsa i doktpra Vatsona (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson) and Portuguese films, such as O Xangô de Baker Street (The Baker Street Tango) {Gotta see if I can track down that one for next year's Luso World Blogathon}.

As for TV, many versions came from the UK and the BBC, including the lauded Jeremy Brett version from the 80's and one that featured Peter Cushing in the role of the great detective. There was an American TV version from 1954 featuring Ronald Howard, but that only lasted one season. Recently on American TV there was Elementary, with Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes living in New York, albeit without the traditional male Dr. Watson; in this case Lucy Liu played a psychiatrist hired by Holmes' father to keep an eye on him.

But my favorite iteration of the Holmes character, by far, is the 2010 BBC series, which pitted Holmes and Watson in modern day London. As I said before elsewhere, this is an interesting development, because usually I prefer my Holmes and Watson in Victorian England, rather than what I perceive to be manipulation in making them modern. And, although that's exactly what happened, it doesn't actually make me wince. The kudos for this lie mostly on the actor Benedict Cumberbatch to make it work for me, although I can't ignore the scriptwriters who "foisted" this change.

There were only four seasons of the series, and only 3 episodes in each season. I recommend ALL of the episodes, but I am going to highlight my favorite episode from each of the seasons. If you decide to dive in, however, I highly recommend you watch it from episode one, as there is a thread running through the entire series, especially the season 4 series.  

Sherlock quite often injected little "Easter eggs", sly winks to the original stories which helped make the series more acceptable to purists (at least to ones who were amenable to that whole concept of Sherlock in the 21st century, anyway...) So you will see references below to where the stories got some inspiration from the canon.   

 

 

"The Great Game" (Season 1 Episode 3; original broadcast Jan. 1, 2012) {Note: the "original broadcast" dates for these are the UK dates, not the US dates...}

In this episode we finally get to meet Sherlock Holmes' (Benedict Cumberbatch) arch-nemesis, Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott). {BTW: You can start with this one, if you wish, instead of the first episode "A Study in Pink". In the first two episodes there are hints to his existence, but he isn't really on stage until this one}.  

The references to the original stories:  

This episode brings out elements from "The Five Orange Pips" and "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans". The five Greenwich time signals parallels the pips, and, of course, the stolen plans by the Andrew West character are directly related to the Bruce-Partington story.

The episode starts out in typical Sherlock fashion. Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) is frustrated because there are no crimes worthy of his intellect to solve. But that's about to change.

Maybe not from the visit from his brother, however. Mycroft (Mark Gatiss), an upper level figure in the government wants Sherlock to investigate the death of a functionary, a man who may have stolen some secret plans for a missile defense system. (This is a direct parallel to an original Holmes story "The Adventure of  Bruce-Partington Plans") But the mercurial Sherlock declines, mainly because he and Mycroft are rather competitive, as brothers will be. 

The real meat of the episode involves Sherlock getting a mysterious message from  a caller. It turns out that the caller is not the villain; it is someone that the villain has briefly kidnapped and then wired up with explosives. Through the voice of the victim the villain relays the parameters of the "game" he is playing.

Sherlock is given a brief period of time to solve the mystery or the villain will set off the bomb. This happens several times over the course of the episode. As Sherlock solves each crime, he lets the villain know of his solution through his blog and the original caller is allowed to reveal his or her location so the bomb can be dismantled. 

The intense mental battle between Sherlock and the villain are what makes this episode click, but it would hardly be so worthy if the mysteries weren't intriguing themselves. Ultimately, it turns out that the villain is our nemesis who had only been hinted at in the previous two episodes; Moriarty. 

And the final confrontation ends in a cliffhanger that hints at the next season. If you are old enough to remember the "Who shot J.R.?" cliffhanger from the TV series Dallas, I would bet that in the UK this was one of those water cooler moments, similar to that, that often happens in such shows. (This part of the episode is somewhat related to another story in the Holmes canon, "The Five Orange Pips")

The mystery of the death of the functionary from the beginning also plays into the story, and it's connection to the mysterious bomber fits in rather well. This episode also, more than most of them, really encapsulates the dichotomy of personalities between Watson and Holmes, with Holmes being adverse to showing any kind of emotion while Watson actually cares about the victims the villain has chosen to inflict his plans upon.

 

 

"The Hounds of Baskerville" (Season 2 Episode 2; original broadcast Jan. 8, 2012):

Note: It would be entirely to easy just to fast forward to the cliffhanger episode from season 2 as my choice. It is good. But then all three of them are, for that matter. But really, the most intriguing one touches upon another abiding interest of mine, that of secrecy in the government shadows...  

The references to the original stories: 

Obviously the primary source of inspiration for this episode is the novel "The Hound of the Baskervilles".  The titular dog is a key to the mystery, But there are subtle references to other stories, including "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot", which featured a similar mysterious gas. (And where else but at a secret government laboratory would you find such an insidious development...?) Also, a "bet" that Holmes claims to have with Watson to induce a guy to reveal knowledge that he is reluctant to give comes from an incident in "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle". 

The basic story involves a character named Henry Knight who has come to Holmes for help. Henry has been having nightmares related to the death of his father years earlier. Henry's father, at least by his memory, was attacked by, in his words, a "giant hound". Initially Holmes is reluctant to get involved, but the word "hound" intrigues him. 

This leads to an investigation which results in Holmes and Watson going to a high security location called "Baskerville", which has parallels not only with secret government facilities in the US, but also in Great Britain. Holmes uses an ID of Mycroft, his brother, who is, as Holmes has noted, not only a bigwig in the government, but he actually "is the British government". Note: We get a hint of that in previous episodes, including the first episode in season 2.

There is quite a bit of intrigue involved in the case. Apparently at the base of it is the fact that the Baskerville facility is involved in some sort of hallucinatory drug meant to be used in chemical warfare with Britain's enemies. The solution hinges a lot on the fact that the word "hound" is an odd word to use, when just "dog" would be more appropriate in the common vernacular.

 

 

 

 

"The Empty Hearse" (Season 3 Episode 1; original broadcast Jan. 1, 2014):

Note: The episode picks up where season 2 left off, with Holmes having supposedly died by leaping off a building). 

The cliffhanger at the end of season 2 showed Watson walking away from the grave of Holmes, with Holmes looking on from just outside of Watson's vision, thus everyone watching the series already knew that Holmes didn't really die, but it probably also became another of what is known as a "water cooler" moment (referenced above). 

At the beginning Watson has moved on with his life. The story picks up two years later. Watson is about to ask Mary Morstan, his current girlfriend, to marry him when Holmes shows up. Unlike the ecstatic Watson in the  classic "The Empty House" story that brought Holmes back from the dead in the canon, Watson here is incensed that Holmes didn't let him in on the truth, leaving him to grieve and eventually come to terms with the loss.

Holmes hasn't been entirely "on vacation" all this time. He was busy trying to dismantle Moriarty's evil empire. (Moriarty himself had died in the season 2 finale). But Holmes is back because Mycroft has information about an impending terrorist attack. Meanwhile many conspiracy theories have cropped up surrounding Holmes' "death", including a fun one proposed by one of Holmes' detractors in Scotland Yard. (The conspiracy theories are sort of a humorous jab, it seems to me, at the comparative conspiracies surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy, some of which imply that JFK did not actually die in Dallas on that fateful day).

More than any other episode in the series, this one throws a plethora of references to stories from the original Doyle stories. Besides the return of Holmes from the dead,  there are either brief or sometimes even overt callbacks to such classic can as "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle", "A Case of Identity", "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott" and above all, a peek into how Mary Morstan from "The Sign of Four" and Dr. Watson came to be together.

A lot of the story is centered on a celebration of an entirely British tradition, November 5th, the anniversary of the Guy Fawkes plan to blow up the House of Lords that was foiled back in the 17th century. As the new 21st century dawns, there is a new plan to do the same thing. In fact, the reason that Holmes makes his reappearance is because Mycroft brought him out of his "vacation" to look into a new terrorist plot, of which Mycroft only knows that there is something nefarious in the works, he just doesn't know what.

Aside from the intrigue of the terrorist plan, what really sets this episode apart is the introduction of  Mary Morstan (Amanda Abbington). If you get involved in Mary's arc in the series you are going to be caught up in a very intriguing character. Mary is not just an afterthought in the story line in the TV series, unlike the canon of stories. She eventually becomes one of the key ingredients in a story that will knock the traditionalist Holmes aficionado for a loop.

"The Final Problem" (Season 4 Episode 3; original broadcast Jan. 15, 2017):

The what turned out to be (so far) the last Sherlock episode of the Cumberbatch-Freeman era turns out to be one of the most intriguing and convoluted stories in the entire series.  It has all been leading up to this, although it ends up feeling somewhat like the producers tried to throw as much stuff into one episode because they knew it would be their last one. 13 episodes in (the side project "The Abominable Bride" is included in the pantheon, even though technically it is an independent project) and we get to see more bizarre twists than all of the other episodes combined.

A word of warning: If you don't commit to watching this series from beginning to end in order you may get lost with this one. Not only is it a wrap up of the arc of season 4, but it contains elements that extend from season 3, as well as some information that has been revealed since the beginning.

The episode opens with a little girl waking up on a plane where everyone, including the pilots, are passed out. A cell phone rings and she answers it and our old friend Jim Moriarty says "Welcome to the final problem". But, since Moriarty is, by this time, dead, there is something else entirely going on.

What is going on is Sherlock discovers that Mycroft has systematically eliminated Sherlock's memory of a sister, Eurus (Sian Brooke). See, years ago when they were kids, Eurus had been born a year after Sherlock. And Eurus turned out to be someone that makes Moriarty look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Eventually Mycroft had put Eurus in a high security prison because Eurus was a danger to polite society.

Except somehow Eurus has figured out how to circumvent the security system. And, it turns out, a few years prior to the current situation, Mycroft had made an egregious error by granting an unsupervised meeting between Eurus and Moriarty (who was still alive at the time). You know this can't be good. 

Really, to get any deeper into this complicated story would be depriving you of the experience. Just to entice you however, think of Eurus as being much more devious and also much more intelligent than Hannibal Lecter (although I don't THINK Eurus ever dined on brains "with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti"...) 

This episode takes elements from several stories in the canon, but most of them are just veiled references to brief mentions of characters found in the stories. The title itself is the same as the one in which Conan Doyle originally killed off Holmes, and since this is the final episode of the BBC series it is somehow fitting. Spoiler alert! Holmes doesn't die at the end of this episode however. 

Ultimately, as I have stated, the Sherlock series is best watched in order, since the story arc presents details throughout that fit together as one major puzzle. Even though I chose the third episode of season 1 to highlight instead of the first episode, I usually recommend you start with the first episode as an introduction. If you aren't completely hooked (as I was) after the first one, then possibly it may not be your cup of tea. 

 

That's it for this Bingeworthy episode. Keep coming back for more. 

Quiggy

 

 

Body of Evidence

 

This is my entry in the Master of Suspense Blogathon hosted by Classic Film and TV Corner

 

 

 

I think there is something wrong with me. But if there is, it's a good bet I'm not alone in the world. 

In that I mean that I absolutely enjoy when a movie takes a despicable act of real life, and turning it into a dynamic tension filled drama on the big screen, without any apparent apologies from the makers for what they are perpetrating on the public. In the case of Rope it was the real story of the murder of a boy by two of his "friends". In 1924 two college students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, had killed an associate of theirs, Bobby Franks.

For the time (the 1940's), it would seem that the basic background story would have been controversial to put to film. Not the murder itself... Everyone knows that murder was a subject that was always a useful and entertaining subject for film, dating back to the early days of cinema. (The Great Train Robbery from 1903 is sometimes credited as the first film to ever depict someone actually being killed on screen). And murder had happened countless times in films since then. So, by 1948 it wouldn't have been outlandish to see someone killed in a movie.  

The part that was controversial, and the part the makers of Rope had to work around, was the homosexuality of the two main characters. In 1948 it was still taboo to come right out and say anyone was homosexual in a movie. This despite the fact that a character had been established as such elsewhere. (I am always intrigued by the fact that Joel Cairo, one of the villains of Dashiell Hammett's original novel version of The Maltese Falcon, is unabashedly designated as one, but when it came time to film the Humphrey Bogart version of the story the producers had to tread a very thin line when portraying him).

In Rope, the main characters are very much supposed to be lovers, but the Hays Code that was in effect at the time forbade anything that might outright establish this relationship. Again, this despite the fact that the characters they were based on, Leopold and Loeb, were indeed in that kind of relationship. Now, even though Hitchcock couldn't come right out and state that the two were gay, there were several scenes throughout that could hint at this relationship. But under no circumstances was it allowed that the audience could definitively say "yeah, those two are lovers". At least overtly.

There are hints, to be sure. At one point the two murderers are discussing the murder (at least that's what the implication of the scene is supposed to convey):

 

Phillip: "How did it feel... during it?"

Brandon: "I don't remember feeling very much of anything... until his body went limp and I knew it was over. I felt tremendously exhilarated. How did you feel?"

Hitchcock got away with quite a bit in that respect. 

Arthur Laurentz, the screenplay writer. in an interview of a documentary, The Celluloid Closet, says :

"I don't think the censors at that time realized this was about gay people. They didn't have a clue what was and what wasn't, that's how it got by." 

It is interesting to note that Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift were both considered for parts in the film, but both turned down the roles because they didn't want to play characters that may or may not be homosexuals, even though both had reputations within the Hollywood community as having an affinity for that kind of relationship. (The original character of Cadell had had a relationship with one of the boys prior to the events in the film in the original play, but that relationship was removed when Stewart took over the role). 

There is another subtext that may or may not be all that obvious, at least to modern audiences. The characters of Brandon and Phillip feel that they are above the law because they consider themselves superior to the common man, on an intellectual level. Therefore they consider the act of murder at least condonable because their victim is less than superior. Thus Brandon and Phillip could almost be seen as mirrors of the Nazi ideology of a superior or "master race". I also think that there is some hint at the Russian red communistic ideal that replaced the aristocratic bourgeoisie with the intellectual bourgeoisie to them.

And in fact, during the denouement of the film, Stewart's Cadell attaches much of the Nazi ideology (via Nietzche's Man and Superman philosophy)  to Brandon and Phillip:

"By what right do you dare say that there's a superior few to which you belong? By what right did you dare decide that, that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed? Did you think you were God, Brandon? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him? Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave? I don't know what you thought or what you are, but I know what you've done. You've murdered!" 

 

 

 

Rope: (1948):

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to make an appearance. Since 99% of the film takes place inside Brandon and Phillip's apartment, Hitch's cameo came during the opening credits. You can see him walking on the sidewalk just outside the apartment building.

 

The movie itself opens with the murder, as Phillip (Farley Granger) does the dirty work of strangling David (Dick Hogan) as Brandon (John Dall) watches with undisguised glee.

The two hide the body, along with the rope in a trunk in the living room, and proceed to prepare for a dinner party they are going to host. Despite Phillip's objection Brandon insists that they convert the trunk into the serving table for the party. Brandon has a macabre sense of humor, to say the least.

 

In fact, not only are the guests to include David's parents and David's fiancee, Janet (Joan Chandler), but Brandon has also invited Kenneth (Douglas Dick). Kenneth was a former lover of Janet, but the two are no longer an item, since Janet left him for David. This, of course, creates a bit of an uncomfortable situation for Janet and Kenneth. But being the essence of a person who lacks the scruples of polite society, Brandon finds the situation enthusing.

 

 

Also invited, unbeknownst to Phillip, is their former schoolteacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). It was because of some very controversial opinions of Cadell that Brandon and Phillip initiated their experiment with murder in the first place.

 

The situation gradually starts to come apart mainly because Phillip has regained some of his conscience and feels guilt as well as fear of exposure while Brandon continues to hold on to his intellectual superiority. It's not hard to tell which one is going to crack.

 

The whole coverup really starts to fall apart as Cadell realizes that David's continued absence is not because David, all of a sudden, has developed a change of approach to his usual habits. David would not have, by Cadell's, (as well as his fiancee's and his parents') way of thinking just not show up for a scheduled date. And Cadell realizes that the way to get at the truth is to work on the insecure Phillip.

 

Eventually the part breaks up, but Cadell, whose suspicions have forced him to reach a conclusion that the pair have committed some unorthodox  actions comes back, under a ruse that he left his cigarette case behind. He confronts the two. The emotionally fragile Phillip eventually breaks, but the solid and "intellectually superior" Brandon holds onto his convictions; that some are just superior to others and have the right to do and act as they please. 

 

Cadell is not without sin in the matter itself. Earlier in the movie he had carried on a conversation with the guests about the benefits of committing murder. Only Cadell is speaking only intellectually, he is only proposing his ideas for a philosophical discussion. The problem is that by proposing the ideas he has inadvertently given Brandon and Phillip a "justification" for their actions. And words, despite what some people might believe, can be just as damaging as actions.

 

"Brandon, till this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me. I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect. And you've thrown my own words right back in my face, Brandon. You were right, too. If nothing else, a man should stand by his words. But you've given my words a meaning that i never dreamed of! And you've tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder! Well, they never were that Brandon, and you cant make them that. There must of been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there's always been something deep inside me, that would never let me do it - and would never let me be a party to it now." 

 

You know, for the most part I thought, like other reviewers I read, that Stewart was miscast in the role of Cadell. He never really came across as the cynical professor that the part seemed to indicate that he was. It is only in that final confrontation that I think Stewart really shines. Granger and Dahl. on the other hand, really came across as the characters whose roles they inhabited. Especially Dahl. I couldn't help but feel pity for Phillip because he seemed to be ripe for domination from Brandon, but Brandon was basically the essence of Machiavellian, and Dahl probably was the best available actor in Hollywood at the time to pull it off.

Rope was not a huge hit. It was Hitchcock's first film without a studio backing him (he had created Transatlantic Pictures for the sole purpose of producing films his way, and this was his first foray). It barely made back it's cost in terms of box office receipts. What may have had an effect on it's commercial viability may have been that whole "gay subtext", but I also think that what might have affected it's success is there is not much really going on in it. You get the murder in the first 2 minutes and then the rest of the film is just a bunch of people rambling on. It's essentially a stage play. And Hitchcock didn't help matters, in my opinion, by making every effort to hide the fact that it was a movie (making it intentionally look like a stage play, in other words).

Rope is no where near the worst of Hitchcock's output. (That would be Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in my opinion). But on the other hand, it's not one of his best either. The thing that really hampers the film in my opinion is the subpar cast of characters other than Granger and Dahl. Even Stewart really doesn't shine until the final 5 minutes of the film. To be fair the rest of the cast are just there as set decoration for the story, but none of them really make their characters seem like real people.

I think Rope is worth a watch, to be sure. But if I had a choice between it and a half dozen other Hitchcock films, (and you get to pick which ones those other five would be), I would probably choose at least 2 of the others in the choices over Rope. 

Well folks, time to get this old Plymouth back to the garage. And despite the rumors floating around, there is no dead body in the trunk. Really.

Quiggy

  

 

  

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #30: Cold Turkey

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

 

Week #30: Iowa -

 

 

The state of Iowa was established on December 28, 1846.

Details about Iowa:

State bird: eastern goldfinch

State flower: prairie rose    

State tree: bur oak

Additional historical trivia:

While Texas is home to the world's largest convenience store, the Buc-ee's in Luling, they don't allow trucks. The world's largest truck stop is in Walcott.

The legendary plane crash that took the lives of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and The Big Bopper occurred in Iowa.

The first bridge built over the mighty Mississippi River was built here.

In 1869 Arabella Mansfield became the first female lawyer in the US.

The trampoline was invented in Cedar Rapids. 

Obviously (or maybe not), Field of Dreams was filmed here.

  

Famous people born in Iowa: Samuel Z. Arkoff, who was one half of the founding team of American International Pictures (see AIP sidebar on the left side of this page), John Wayne!!, Ashton Kutscher, Kurt Warner, Shawn Johnson,  travel writer Bill Bryson (and check out some of his work...), Grant Wood (the painter of "American Gothic"), First Lady Mamie Eisenhower, Vice President (under FDR) Henry Wallace, and US President Herbert Hoover.

Cold Turkey (1971): 

How the hell is this movie not known by more people? (Maybe it is well-known in some sectors of the population, but it is definitely not a world wide phenomenon...) The cachet of stars involved would seem to indicate that it should be a big name, whether or not it is on the same level as, say. Blazing Saddles. I mean, just look at the cast: Dick Van Dyke and Bob Newhart are the anchors of the film, and Norman Lear, who gave us All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Good Times and Maude, essentially being the face of produced TV comedies of the 70's, was the writer an director of the film. And the rest of the cast is also familiar to anyone who was a devotee of 70's and 80's comedy on TV: Jean Stapleton, Tom Poston, Paul Benedict, Bob (Elliot) and Ray (Goulding), Barnard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia and even Edward Everett Horton. Hell, it even has Randy "Short People" Newman on board for the music.

But, until I decided to pick this film for my entry for Iowa, I had never even heard of it.

Perhaps a lot of the blame could be placed on it's timing. With the exception of Dick Van Dyke most of those other names were still on the other side of their fame. Jean Stapleton, for instance, had only just started her career in the role of Edith Bunker on All in the Family, and Bob Newhart was still a year away from his breakout on TV on The Bob Newhart Show. Paul Benedict as the iconic British neighbor of George and Louise Jefferson was still a couple of years down the road. (I should note here that, although the film was released in 1971, the film was actually made in 1969, so even most of those "stars" were even further away from their iconic status when the film was actually produced.)

The basic premise is that executives at the Valiant Tobacco Company want to improve their image. With the help of an advertising executive, Merwin Wren (Bob Newhart), they plan a stunt which NOBODY in their right mind would follow through with. Wren cites how Alfred Nobel, who made millions with the invention of dynamite, made his name a household symbol of good will by using his wealth to create the Nobel prize. The idea is that the Valiant company would offer a town a $25 million prize if the entire town could go without smoking for a month.

 

Ridiculous, right? That's exactly what the tobacco company thinks. No town could possibly ever get all of it's citizens, 100% of them, to give up smoking, so the town would achieve a PR bonus by proposing it, but since it has to be the WHOLE town agreeing to it, and it being thought impossible to achieve a 100% commitment, they would look good without even having to pony up the money.

Except! The little town of Eagle Rock in Iowa has had a depressed economy for the last few years, and greed trumps addiction. It's not easy, to be sure. I think this town may be one that has the highest percentage of smokers vs. non-smokers. It looks like around 75% or more of them light up. But through the efforts of a goodwill endeavor by the local minister, Rev. Brooks (Dick Van Dyke), a gung-ho effort is made to get the town 100% committed to stopping smoking, albeit mostly for the moolah that will flow into the city coffers (coughers?).

 

It isn't quite the gargantuan effort that it would take to get a town the size of, say, Des Moines, whose 1970 census population was over 200,000. Eagle Rock only has a meager 4,000 citizenry. But with the efforts of Brooks and some rather greedy citizens in the city management, the entire town agrees to give it a shot.

 

Of course, this isn't Mayberry and Brooks isn't Andy Taylor. The town is full of a bunch of people who aren't exactly likeable in the first place. Couple that with the intense withdrawal that is bound to happen when you quit a habit like smoking, and you have the makings of a "chaos du jour". Anybody watching this film will either laugh at the antics of the drug withdrawal, or possibly even look at it with a self-righteous smirk (especially if you are not a smoker yourself).

Some of the humor derives from some well-acted characterizations, however. Barnard Hughes is one of the highlights, as a doctor who usually has a cigarette to calm his nerves before operating. You probably don't want this guy cutting you open when he has shaky hands from lack of nicotine. 

Another great part is when a radio announcer says that the best way to curb the nervousness from withdrawal is sex. Which leads to a couple of humorous scenes when Brooks keeps showing up at the house and his wife's look of resignation as to what's coming next. (BTW, this is a PG movie, so don't get any ideas you are going to see anything you couldn't let your kids see).

 

Another highlight of the film is an overenthusiastic old lady, Odie (Judith Lowry), who wants to be top dog law enforcement officer in town when it comes to making people stick to the commitment. As well, Graham Jarvis is a hoot playing the town wannabee gestapo stooge who takes it upon his own to form a watchdog agency that stops every car entering the city limits and searches them for contraband tobacco.

 

We also get the comedy team of Bob and Ray showing as various parodies of then current newscasters, which to be truthful, is hit or miss. The two appear, variously, as "Walter Chronic" (Walter Cronkite), "David Chetley" (a composite of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley). "Paul Hardly" (Paul Harvey), "Harry Reasonable" (Harry Reasoner and "Mike Walrus" (Mike Wallace).

 

 

Even Van Dyke's character is not immune to the inane change of personality. Although he is not the goody-two-shoes type that he had often played in his TV and movie career here, he starts out with his heart somewhat in the right place. But even he succumbs to the personality change that is prevalent among the populace.

 

As it becomes apparent that the town of Eagle Rock may actually buck the odds and win the coveted prize the tobacco company tries desperately to find a way to make the town renege on it's goal. The ultimate ruse at the end is what really makes this black comedy film zing to it's conclusion. I won't give away the ending, but pay attention... Wren is not running around with a gun-shaped cigarette lighter just for show...

 

It turns out that this movie has garnered more attention than I thought at first. To be sure, it was a new one for me, since I said I had never heard of it, but there were plenty of reviews of it online that I began to think maybe I have just been leading too sheltered a life. One review even clued me in on a tidbit I thought worth repeating:

Apparently Van Dyke attended an anti-smoking seminar and an event that happened at said seminar inspired him to pitch an idea to Lear about focusing on one guy's attempt to quit smoking. It was Lear who transformed the idea to a whole town quitting, and thus we got... I hesitate to call it "comedy gold"... but let's just  call it "comedy bronze"...

As stated above the movie was actually filmed in 1969, but studio execs were wary that it wouldn't be received with much enthusiasm, so it's release was delayed by two years. And, as it turned out, it wasn't a real big hit. It only made a meager $130,000 in it's first week. And it only pulled in $5 million by the end of it's first run. It wasn't entirely well received either. It holds a meager 57% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Although Roger Ebert, at the time, gave it a 4 out of 4 stars, many other contemporary reviewers were not so generous. Variety said it was marred by sluggish pacing and a bizarre ending. Ebert's cohort Gene Siskel said that "scene after scene runs too long". 

To be honest, it has a rather limited viewership. Most of it's screenings were in the mid-west, according to my sources.  Interestingly enough, this was the only theater released film that Lear, who had made his name in the small screen world, ever directed.  Overall I would say it's just an OK film, but probably would have been better suited as a TV movie, thus making it more suited for Lear output in the first place.

Well, folks, gotta get this old Plymouth back to the garage. And, since I quit smoking myself years ago, that trip through Eagle Rock is going to be uneventful.

Quiggy

 

 

 

Book Review: The Hollywood Hall of Shame by Harry and Michael Medved

Note: I was inspired to re-read this book and post this review after reading Realweegiemidget Reviews review of Boom!, a film that was one of the focused entries in this book. Gil encouraged me to follow through with this long overdue review of the book. 

 

 

 

 

The Hollywood Hall of Shame by Harry and Michael Medved 

Not long ago I reviewed a recently released book titled Box Office Poison by Tim Robey. The subject matter being the same as this book, a background into what went into making movies that had big hopes and big budgets, but eventually bombed at the box office, made for some interesting reading. That review of Robey's book mentioned this book in passing, because as I pointed out, this book was published in 1984, and in the 40+ years since it's publication there had been any number of financial fiascos from Tinseltown, so an update was overdue. 

This volume covers 23 films (up to 1982, which was fairly recent at the time) that had pumped tons of money into the production, but through varied reasons, failed to impact the movie going public to shell out their hard earned dollars to go see in the theater. Some of those films started out so far in the hole that making a profit would have been a effort of "epic" proportions. Cleopatra, for instance, had cost so much to produce, that even if the price of a ticket had been double the normal price, it probably STILL would have lost money.

The book starts out with the one movie that nearly every book that covers the subject of financial movie flops HAS to address; 1916's D. W. Griffith mammoth production of Intolerance. The background to that film is indicative of several other films in this "Hall of Shame"; that of a director who insisted on pulling out every stop to get authenticity in the film, including whatever it took to create believable settings. Intolerance included a recreation of a Babylonian setting with tons of moolah building the set. And, according to research, that set still stood years later as a sort of "monument" to extravagance.

Many of the films selected to be included for focus in this volume endured extravagance in production in other areas than just the desires megalomaniac directors trying to achieve authenticity. Three of the films suffered from the machinations of overly egomaniac stars. Three of the 23 films suffered severe setbacks because the star(/stars) of the film created problems that wasted studio money; Elizabeth Taylor (along with Richard Burton in two of them) did more to bring down studio hopes of financial windfalls. These three films, Cleopatra, Boom! and The Only Game in Town are featured here because Taylor had become so intransigent that her demands made the producers bend to her will (and her frequent "illnesses").

A section is devoted to two religious epics. To "infidels" like me the failure of 1977's Mohammed: Messenger of God seem like an obvious failure to hope to capture the American and European dollar, but it seems to me, given the time of it's release, that The Greatest Story Ever Told might have fared a little better, given the fact that two contemporary Biblical epics, The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur had been such money makers. (One of the things the authors point out that I find interesting is that at one point the producers tried to pull in viewers by promoting the presence of John Wayne in the film, even though he is only on screen for less than a minute of the running time...)

The last two entries in the book focus on the then recent releases of Inchon and Heaven's Gate. Inchon in particular is an interesting movie as far as it's production, since it was financed by Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his cult, the Unification Church. The Reverend and his church pumped millions into an epic war movie, which to my mind would seem to be at odds with a church and a message of peace. But the granddaddy of them all would have to be Heaven's Gate. This was the follow-up of Michael Cimino to his Oscar winning The Deer Hunter, (and a review of both of those movies is in the works for a future post).

The Medved brothers have put out several books on movies, and posts past and future from such books as The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time and The Golden Turkey Awards have been inspired from reading those volumes. As far as this book, well, I will say that I have avoided Paint Your Wagon for years because the basic premise did not intrigue me, but after reading the chapter on it included in this volume, I now think it's a movie I just gotta check out some day...

Happy reading, folks.

Quiggy

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #29: Cloak & Dagger

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

Week #29: Texas -

 

 

 

The state of Texas was established on Dec. 29, 1845 

Details about Texas:

State bird: mockingbird

State flower: bluebonnet

State tree: pecan

Additional historical trivia:

There is a radio station in Waco who's call letters are WACO. Only one other city in the U.S. has that distinction: WARE in Ware, PA.

The first ever rodeo was hosted in Pecos in 1883.

Texas has the largest and longest-running State Fair in the US.

Maybe not the longest running college rivalry, but the Texas - Oklahoma Red River Rivalry is (probably) the most watched annual football game.  

Dr Pepper was invented in Waco.

The first Six Flags amusement park opened in Texas, so named because at one time or another Texas has been a country under six nations (Spain, France, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the Conferderate States of America and the USA).

Austin is home to the largest urban bat colony in the US.  

Texas has the largest state capitol building ("Everything is bigger in Texas" is not just hubris).

The King Ranch in Kingsville is larger than the state of Rhode Island. (Again...)

The world's largest set of cowboy boots, 35 ft. tall, stands outside North Star Mall in San Antonio (ditto)

There are 15 states combined that could fit inside Texas' borders (Maybe I'm overdoing it here...) 

The Alamo in San Antonio does NOT have a basement (PeeWee Herman made me add that one...) 

Famous people born in Texas: Willie Nelson (of course), Gene Autry, Beyonce, George Strait, Buddy Holly, Janis Joplin, Lance Armstrong, Nolan Ryan, Rogers Hornsby, Brittney Griner, Drew Brees, Earl Campbell, Vince Young, Larry McMurtry, Steve Martin, Woody Harrelson, Matthew McConaughey, Carol Burnett, Tommy Lee Jones, Sissy Spacek, Dabney Coleman (see movie below), Henry Thomas (again, see movie below) and US Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson 

Note: You can say I'm overdoing it this time on trivia, but Texas IS my home state, so...

 

 

Cloak & Dagger (1984): 

Growing up is tough. It can be especially tough, as a kid, when your mother is dead and your father is somewhat distracted by being a single parent trying to raise a kid on his own while trying to work a job.

There is a tendency, at least as far as films go, for the kid to dive deep into a fantasy world, with the requisite imaginary friend. At this point in my life I really can't remember if I had any imaginary friends. But then, I had both of my parents still around until I was well into my 50's, and a sister who is still with me. I had a stable childhood, and although I did not have very many real friends that I palled around with, I don't think I would have had to create an imaginary friend to accompany me on my "adventures". And even if I did, I seriously doubt that imaginary friend would have gotten me into the kind of trouble that Jack Flack gets young Davey (Henry Thomas) into.

 

Davey is a typical kid on most levels. He is heavily into video games, and even into role-playing games. I should point out here at this point that I was a product of an era that preceded Dungeons and Dragons and the rest of the RPG games that flooded the childhood experience in the late 70's and early 80's (and even to this day). I might have been attracted to it had I had a different upbringing. Note: In my experience I was well into my 20's before I was ever introduced to actually playing Dungeons and Dragons. Being raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church household, even the mention of the game brought up serious religious problems, because D&D and the like were considered doorways into Satanism. I've since become more enlightened. D&D and the like are just harmless fun. 

I imagine Davey plays D&D, but his primary interest is in spy role-playing. As such, his hero is Jack Flack (Dabney Coleman), a dime store knockoff of a James Bond type spy. Jack is a dead ringer for Davey's father, Hal (also played by Coleman). It seems to me that Jack is the character that Davey wishes his father really was, thus emphasizing the fact that Jack and Hal are played by Coleman. 

 

 

But Davey's obsession with spy games takes a dark turn when his friend, Morris (William Forsythe), sends Davey on a "mission" to the local tech lab, (ostensibly to get him out of Morris hair, I think). 

 

Davey takes his friend, Kim (Christina Negri) with him on this mission, still trying to play out this spy game for what it's worth. Except that Davey runs into a real spy game. Three guys kill off a laboratory worker who, before he dies, passes off a video game cartridge called Cloak & Dagger to Davey, with the mission now being that Davey get the game to the FBI.

 

It turns out that the game cartridge is disguised as a regular copy of a video game, but has some hidden data that the bad guys are looking to get their hands on. Remember this is 1984, so even though they never come right out at say it, the implication is that the hidden data is going to be handed of to enemies of the US (probably the Russians, who were in the middle of the Cold War with the US).

 

The bad guys, who are played by Michael Murphy, Eloy Casados and Tim Rossovich, are unscrupulous, to say the least. They have no intention of letting even a little kid stand in the way of the big payday they are expecting. Much of the film involves these three trying to retrieve the game cartridge and kill off (yes, I said "kill off") Davey. These unscrupulous characters even are trying to take out young Kim. (Ye gods!)

 

Over the course of the film Davey's imaginary friend keeps helping young Davey with "advice" better suited for a real adult spy rather than a youthful wannabee. It's hard to actually like Jack, since his main goal seems to be to stay the course of the spy he is supposed to be without any care or remorse for his young companion. Often he puts young Davey in extreme danger. But his goal of getting the game cartridge away from the bad guys takes precedence over any such trivialities as "child endangerment".

 

But since Jack is a product of Davey's imagination, perhaps all the blame can't be put on Jack. More fault could be handed of to Hal who seems a bit clueless how to raise a kid on his own. And then, since Jack is a carbon copy of Hal in Davey's mind, perhaps Davey is just trying to create his own father figure who is much more adventurous than the dull air traffic controller Hal is.

To his credit, Davey gradually matures on his own, realizing that Jack is not the sort of friend that he really needs.  But, since he does still have to do something about the un-American forces that are determined to win at all costs, he does have to grow up pretty fast. He has to. At one point he is faced with a situation where he has to either kill or be killed.

 

There are a couple of twists that I found extremely interesting in this film. For one thing, the three hoodlums have a backing that was almost unexpected. At least, at the beginning. It may be obvious to you before very long into the film that not everybody in this film is exactly who they seem to be. The surprise may be, however, the actors who played the parts. I bet my sister, who is a fan of old movies, would be shocked that a couple of "good guys" could play evil characters.

Cloak & Dagger was released in the summer of 1984. It was, in fact, released on the same day as Red Dawn, and with competition from such blockbusters as Purple Rain and The Karate Kid, as well as Star Trek III and Revenge of the Nerds, which were (probably) still in the theaters, it probably wasn't going to have much of an impact in the first place. The main reason, it seems, for it's August release, was that the big event was the Summer Olympics, and since most kids would have not been very interested in that event, it was thought that the theater would be pulling a larger crowd of kids.

Unfortunately that didn't happen. It only pulled in about $10 million in box office receipts. And the expected tie-in with the video game fell through when it was only released as an arcade game and was not immediately put out for home use. This despite the fact that the movie hinges on this Atari Cloak & Dagger video game that was supposed to be a release for the home video game market.

 

Henry Thomas, the star of Cloak & Dagger, was just coming off a star making role as the best friend of a creature from another world (E.T.: The Extraterrestrial). His career as a child actor was fairly limited, only appearing in a handful of films, but unlike other child actors of the day, he was able to transition to adult roles later in life. Recently he has appeared in no less than three movies based on stories by Stephen King (Gerald's Game, Doctor Sleep and Pet Semetary: Bloodlines).

Dabney Coleman, who passed away in 2024, had a prolific career. You may remember him as the sexist boss Franklin Hart in 9 to 5, or as the soap opera director in Tootsie. He was the murderer in one of my favorite Columbo movies in 1991 (Columbo and the Murder of a Rock Star). 

Michael Murphy is a familiar face, having appeared in such films as the big screen version of M*A*S*H*, Nashville and Batman Returns, but possibly may be more familiar as a voice. He was the narrator of the PBS series of "American Experience". Tim Rossovich, who started out as a professional athlete in the NFL, often cropped up in film and TV in the late 70's and 80's. 

Christina Nigra may look vaguely familiar. If you saw Twilight Zone: The Movie you may remember her as the annoying little brat who keeps pestering John Lithgow in the "Nightmare  at 20,000 Feet" segment, or possibly as Evie Garland's best friend in the TV series Out of This World.

The cast is rounded out with the appearance of a couple of classic movie and TV stars, John McIntyre and Jeanette Nolan, as an elderly couple who may or may not be on Davey's side in his adventure.  

For pure entertainment, I think Cloak & Dagger is a decent movie, It somehow is able to appeal to both the kid and the "kid at heart" and genuinely holds the viewer's interest, despite a few flaws. 

The MacGuffin of the film seems to be a little flimsy to me; how the video game could hold such detailed information that could only be accessed if you got to a specific level of playing it seems to be a little contrived, at least as far as 1984 technology is concerned. Nowadays it would be child's play to hide info this way, and even the youngest wannabe computer kid could crack it with no effort...

The other thing, although obligatory in a kid-friendly movie, is that the three main bad guys are pretty much incompetent. Any real professional criminals could have pulled off eliminating an 8 year old kid without much problem, but these guys probably couldn't eliminate a snail trapped in a 4" x 4" box... 

The highlight for me is the setting of the film. It takes place in San Antonio, and even though I never visited San Antonio until about 8 years later, it still looked familiar to me. The obligatory scene at the iconic Alamo (you CAN'T set a movie in San Antonio without featuring a scene with the Alamo..) is one of the highlights. (Of course, that HAS to be the place where the hoodlums drop off their illicit contraband).

Give this film a try, if for nothing else to see how Henry Thomas was not just a "flash in the pan" with his star making role in E.T. 

Well, that's it for this time. Drive safely, folks. And leave your imaginary friends behind. They are only going to cause you trouble.

Quiggy