Semiquincentennial Project #1: Hiding Out

 

 

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 #1: Delaware :

 

The state of Delaware was the first of the 13 colonies to be established as a state in the United States. It was established, as so proudly displayed on it's state flag, on December 7, 1787. 

Details about Delaware:

State bird: Delaware blue hen

State flower: Peach blossom

State tree: American holly

Delaware's biggest claim, of course is the fact that they were the first state to join the union, and that appears on all of it's official material.

 

 

 

It turns out that, although quite a number of films have utilized locations in Delaware for it's filming locations, there are surprisingly few films that are actually taking place in Delaware. You should be thankful, therefore, that I made "taking place in the state" a priority when making my choices, otherwise today's entry might well have been Redneck Zombies...

 

 

Hiding Out (1987): 

 

Imagine if Michael Douglas' Gordon Gecko was connected to the mob, and instead of just taking a swing at Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox in Wall Street, he actually sent a few of his underlings out to kill the sorry S.O.B. that was going to testify against him at the end of the movie.  That was what I thought of during the initial set up of this film.

It seems that Andrew Morenski (Jon Cryer) and his pals in the bond market have been pegged as key witnesses in the trial of a mob boss named Kapados. It turns out they, maybe or maybe not unknowingly, had been involved in a process of money laundering for the kingpin in said bond market, and are now not so good friends with the mob boss. A contract is out on each of them, and one of them is killed early on. 

 

The FBI have Andrew under tight rein, but Andrew is not happy staying under house arrest.  He convinces his keepers to take him to a diner. Bad move, as a couple of the hit men show up, and while trying to take out Andrew end up killing one of the FBI agents. Andrew makes his escape into Delaware where he plans to hide out with his Aunt Lucy (Gretchen Cryer, and yes that is Jon's mom in real life) and his cousin Patrick (Keith Coogan).

 

In the process to trying to hide out Andrew gets a self induced makeover by cutting and dying his hair. He calls his aunt, who is the local school nurse, and arranges to meet her at the school. But in the process he decides the best way to hide out is take on an entirely new identity. Thus the late 20's-something Andrew becomes the new 17 year old senior at the high school. (Really!) He also takes on a new name: Maxwell Hauser: inspired, on a whim, by seeing a can of Maxwell House coffee... (Really!)

 

OK, just so you didn't miss out on this for later, what we have here is a guy pushing 30 posing as a high school senior. Because some of this stuff is going to push some buttons. For one thing, the inevitable romance between our main character and a girl who really IS a high school senior. In terms of age difference it's only about 12 years, which may be fine and dandy if the guy was 35 and the girl was 23, but it comes off a little weird in retrospect.

Because he has changed his look, he is no longer recognizable to his aunt, but his cousin helps out by hiding him in his bedroom. This works out for a while, but it can't last. 

Anyway, Andrew/Max becomes the center of attention at the high school, especially after he confronts a history teacher, Mrs. Billings (Nancy Fish), who has some decidedly controversial opinions about former Richard Nixon. When he points out the bad side of the former President, he makes an an enemy of the teacher. But on the other hand, he becomes a hero to the class for his stance against the status quo of the school.

 

It ends up getting him more attention than he really wants as there is an effort to get him elected class president, something that the current class president, Kevin O'Roarke (Tim Quill) sees as a threat. Not to mention that Andrew/Max has been spending time with Ryan (Annabeth Gish), whom Kevin considers his own girl. 

 

In the meantime, both the FBI and the crime boss' hit men are on the search for the missing Andrew.  The hit men meet up with Andrew's grandmother, Jennie (Anne Pitoniak), and come across a recently mailed birthday card from Andrew which has the cancellation code clearly stamped as coming from Top Sail, DE. Thus the hit men now know where he is. Of course, they are looking for Andrew before his transformation makeover, so a couple of times they are right next to him but don't know who he is.

Andrew/Max finds out that the FBI has found out who is his aunt is and are at the house looking for him. He has to ditch hiding in her house, and with the help of Patrick ends up hiding out in the last place anyone would look, the school's doctor's office. This goes well until the janitor, Ezzard (Lou Walker) discovers him. The janitor is a good soul and a former boxer who now lives in digs himself at the school.  (Just what kind of security does this school have, anyway..) Andrew lets Ezzard  in on his secret, and Ezzard  lets him in on a secret hideaway in the basement where he can stay. 

Eventually Andrew's conscience gets the better of him and he lets Ryan in on the secret, too.  But all this comes to a head when the hit men really learn exactly where Andrew disappeared to and what he looks like now. At a school assembly announcing the results of the school officers elections, one of the hitmen decides to dispute the election in his own manner.

 

Several things seem to gel to make this movie, but a lot of it is far from unique. We've seen, dozens of times, that old yarn about a "well past high school age" adult trying to pass himself off as a high school student. (While the episodes might have been interesting on occasion, the entire concept of 22 Jump Street was just too unbelievable, even if Johnny Depp did "sort-of" look like he was high school age.)

On the other side of the coin, the teen life in school aspect of the film never really came off for me. Admittedly, in 1987, I was 7 years past my own high school experience, so a lot of the inner relationship angle of school never got me involved. I was much more into the theme in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, even though at the time of THAT movie I had been out of high school for 4 years.

The only part of the movie that really connected with me was the experience of young Patrick trying to get his learner's permit. His mishaps while trying to learn to drive were not like mine (believe it or not, I was driving expertly by the time I took my first driving test), but I could still relate. The only down side to that part is he seems to catch on pretty quick over a brief period, since at the end of the movie he drives up to the graduation in a limo...   

The mob connection part of this movie is what makes this film worth watching, but even that part has some retread sense to it.  

But the main part of the movie, involving Andrew's attempts to try to stay incognito despite his having 10 years of experience in the outside world (you know, like being a working man with an education that far exceeds what any high school boy might be familiar with) sometimes falls flat. For instance, Ryan's father is impressed by "Max's" knowledge of tax codes that helps him save $1000 on his tax return, but he never really becomes entirely suspicious of this kid (which any normal adult would probably do without hesitation). The movie never really plays up on this within the context of the film itself, leaving only the audience to cringe in anticipation of someone actually saying "Hey! Just who the Hell are you.. really?" Most adults in the film seem to just think "hmm... that's a really bright kid..."

Still, all in all, it's not a bad movie. You could be forgiven if your first reaction to this review was "Hiding Out ? Never heard of it." Some of the top films of the year, such as Three Men and a Baby, The Untouchables, and Beverly Hills Cop raked in tons of cash, but Hiding Out only made a paltry $200,000 over it's original budget. And it wasn't entirely well received. Roger Ebert only gave it 2 out of 4 stars, who at least admitted that "the plot continued to intrigue me even after I'd more or less given up on the movie's ability to find anything interesting in it's material". According to one review I read this film barely cracked the top 90 in terms of ticket sales. (And just how many movies were released in 1987, anyway...?)

For those of you who are fans of Cryer's portrayal of Alan in Two and a Half Men, you may find this movie a welcome refresher into the actor. For those of you who like the idea of a 30 year old man trying to pass himself off as a high school student, it may fall a bit short, because, even though Cryer was only 22 when the film was made, I personally found it hard to see him effectively convincing as a 17 year old. But, as for the driving force that brings this situation to it's necessity, the fact that there are some goons out to cut him down, that part I did like.

That's it for this week. Drive safely.

Quiggy

 

 

  

The Semiquincentennial Movie Project

 

The Semiquincentennial Movie Project

Happy New Year 2026!

2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the creation of the United States. As the blogger of The Midnite Drive-In, I decided to launch a celebration of my own to celebrate this milestone.  As such, I am beginning a series of entries which will last the entire year.  Each week of 2026 I am going to highlight a movie that uses one of the states of the Union as one of it's primary locations.

Of course, film did not even exist as a medium in 1776.  And, even though I was a history major in college, I have no desire to make this project a history lesson (although, as per my wont, there will be occasional historical notes...). My choice of movies will be primarily the same type of movies in which I have always had an interest. So prepare for some action, science fiction, horror, comedies and the occasional straightforward dramas.

Since I don't want it to appear I am playing favorites, I decided to post these entries in order of each state's entry into the Union. Otherwise my first entry would have been Texas, my home state. As such, the Texas entry won't appear until late July. Beginning with Delaware, the first state to be officially admitted to the union, each week I will be presenting a movie that has a connection to the state featured, usually meaning the primary story takes place within the state.  And there will be a break halfway through the series, because I thought it fitting that I devote the week of July 4th to a movie filmed in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, since July 4 is Independence Day for the U.S. And since that makes only 51 weekly entries, that means the final week of the year is open. I decided on a cross country road trip theme. Thus, Damnation Alley, a science fiction classic that involves traversing the continental United States will wrap this whole shebang up.

The schedule, which I will try to stay committed to is as follows: Note: The entry could appear on Sunday, but the weekly schedule leaves me an option to post later in the week if circumstances occur that cause delays. And, although at this point I intend to stick to the ones I've chosen, I may decide to change my choice by the time the actual date comes around.

And one final note: It may just be that the movie I picked may not have much of a good reputation with the citizens of the state in question. I picked these movies because I like them. I make no apologies for my choices.  But, being that the comment section of this blog is not ruled over with an iron fist (meaning I allow anybody to criticize me), you are welcome to dispute my choices. 

Week 1 Jan. 4-10: Delaware - Hiding Out (1987)

Week 2 Jan. 11-17: Pennsylvania - The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh (1979)

Week 3 Jan. 18-24: New Jersey - The Toxic Avenger (1986)

Week 4 Jan. 25-31: Georgia -Gator (1976)

Week 5 Feb. 1-7: Connecticut - The Stepford Wives (1975)

Week 6 Feb. 8-14: Massachusetts - Alice's Restaurant (1969)

Week 7 Feb. 15-21: Maryland - Explorers (1985)

Week 8 Feb. 22-28: South Carolina - D.A.R.Y.L. (1985)

Week 9 Mar. 1-7: New Hampshire - The U.F.O. Incident (1975)

Week 10 Mar. 8-14: Virginia - Greased Lightning (1977)

Week 11 Mar. 15-21: New York - Serpico (1973)

Week 12 Mar. 22-28: North Carolina - Hero's Island (1962)

Week 13 Mar. 29-Apr. 4: Rhode Island - Jazz on a Summer's Day (1959)

Week 14 Apr. 5-11: Vermont - The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Week 15 Apr. 12-18: Kentucky - The Moonshine War (1970)

Week 16 Apr. 19-25: Tennessee - The Evil Dead (1981)

Week 17 Apr. 26-May 2: Ohio - Harper Valley P.T.A. (1978)

Week 18 May 3-9: Louisiana - Swamp Thing (1982)

Week 19 May 10-16: Indiana - Breaking Away (1979)

Week 20 May 17-23: Mississippi - Mississippi Burning (1988)

Week 21 May 24- 30: Illinois - The Untouchables (1987)

Week 22 May 31-Jun 6: Alabama - To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Week 23 Jun. 7-13: Maine - The Dead Zone (1983)

Week 24 Jun. 14-20: Missouri - The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery (1959)

Week 25 Jun. 21-27: Arkansas - The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Week 26 Jun. 28-Jul. 4: Washington, D.C. - The Werewolf of Washington (1973)

Week 27 Jul. 5-11: Michigan - Blue Collar (1978)

Week 28 Jul. 12-18: Florida - Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959)

Week 29 Jul. 19-25: Texas - Cloak and Dagger (1984)

Week 30 Jul. 26-Aug. 1: Iowa - Cold Turkey (1971)

Week 31 Aug. 2-8: Wisconsin - The Giant Spider Invasion (1975)

Week 32 Aug. 9-15: California - Car Wash (1976)

Week 33 Aug. 16-22: Minnesota - Purple Rain (1984)

Week 34 Aug. 23-29: Oregon - Short Circuit (1986)

Week 35 Aug. 30-Sep. 5: Kansas - King Kung Fu (1976)

Week 36 Sep. 6-12: West Virginia - Matewan (1987)

Week 37 Sep.13-19: Nevada - The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)

Week 38 Sep. 20-26: Nebraska - Children of the Corn (1984)

 Week 39 Sep. 27-Oct. 3: Colorado - America 3000 (1986)

Week 40 Oct. 4-10: North Dakota - Three Faces West (1940)

Week 41 Oct. 11-17: South Dakota - Badlands (1973)

Week 42 Oct. 18-24: Montana - The Cowboys (1972)

Week 43 Oct. 25-31: Washington - War Games (1983)

Week 44 Nov. 1-7: Idaho - The Being (1983)

Week 45 Nov. 8-14: Wyoming - Stagecoach (1966)

Week 46 Nov. 15-21: Utah - Carnival of Souls (1962)

Week 47 Nov. 22-28: Oklahoma - The Outsiders (1983)

Week 48 Nov. 29-Dec. 5: New Mexico - The Leopard Man (1943)

Week 49 Dec. 6-12: Arizona - Tarantula! (1955)

Week 50 Dec. 12-19: Alaska - The Spoilers (1942)

Week 51 Dec. 20-26: Hawaii - Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)

Week 52 Dec. 27-Jan 2: Road Trip: Damnation Alley (1977)

Hope you have an excellent 2026. I'm certainly going to try.

Quiggy

 

 

Christmas with the Nerds

 

 

 

 

A favorite TV show of mine was The Big Bang Theory. The show centered around a group of four friends who, unlike most TV sitcoms, were a cut above the norm, intellectually speaking. The shows main stars were Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki), a Ph.D. in experimental physics, and his friend/roommate Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons), a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. Rounding out the quartet of friends was Raj Koothrappali (Kunal Nayyar), a Ph.D. in astophysics, and the "dumb bunny" of the group,  Howard Wolowitz (Simon Helberg), who only has a Master's Degree (in aerospace engineering).

 

One of the more admirable aspects of the show, in my opinion, was the casting of those last two. Raj, who is from India, was actually played by a real Indian actor and Howard, who is Jewish, was played by an actor who was from a Jewish background. Too often, especially in early TV, you were expected to believe that a white Anglo Saxon actor was really of some foreign extraction. This made the characters seem more believable. 

In the first couple of seasons it was just these four along with a new neighbor that moved in to the apartment next door, Penny (Kaley Cuoco). Added to this crew in later seasons was a wife for Howard, Bernadette (Melissa Rauch) and a girlfriend for Sheldon, Any (Miyam Bialik). In addition a relationship would develop between Leonard and Penny. Raj, on the other hand was usually the odd man out, as he had even more trouble connecting with members of the opposite sex than the rest of the nerds.

This set up the second episode I will discuss in this piece. 

But the first one I am discussing, called The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis, which was actually a second season episode, was actually the first Christmas episode of the series, and one of my favorites. There are three separate story lines here that are connected as can only happen in the sitcom world. The first is: a highly lauded and very very intelligent fellow professor, David Underhill (Michael Trucco), asks Leonard for help in the university lab for an experiment he is conducting. Leonard is overwhelmed by this, experiencing what may be called a "bromance" with David.

 

But the bromance becomes seriously undermined when David meets Leonard's neighbor, Penny, and starts to spend more time with her than he does with Leonard.  The reasons are actually two-fold, because Leonard has had a crush on Penny since the day she first moved into the building and sees David as an interloper. Not to worry, though, because as per Penny's usual success with long term relationships with guys, it turns out that David is actually married.

 

The second part of the episode involves Sheldon, who is distraught to find out that Penny has bought him a Christmas present. Rather than being receptive to the spirit of Christmas, Sheldon has long dismissed Christmas as a church adaptation of a pagan ritual, neither of which he is very receptive. But to complicate matters, he now feels obligated to buy Penny a present. Having no clue what women would even consider a good present, he goes with Howard and Raj to a knockoff Bed, Bath and Beyond store. But even then he has trouble deciding which of the gift baskets to buy, not wanting to be seen as buying something way to cheap by comparison, or way too expensive.

 

So his solution is to buy several baskets, then after opening Penny's present, retrieve the one closest to value to her gift, and then return the others for a refund. But Penny's gift is just a napkin from the Cheesecake Factory where she works... Ah, but there's a twist! The napkin is signed by Leonard Nimoy, who we all know was Spock on Star Trek. Not only that, but Nimoy wiped his mouth on the napkin before signing it, so it contains DNA from Nimoy himself. And Sheldon enthuses he could grow his own Leonard Nimoy from it.  (Note:  I have since seen an article that states you couldn't get reliable usable DNA from spit, but that doesn't detract from the story). Sheldon is overwhelmed and gives Penny ALL the gift baskets, as well as hugs her (and that is impressive in itself, since Sheldon probably only hugs about 3 or 4 people during the entire run of the show...)

 

The second episode covered here was a sixth season episode, titled The Santa Simulation. In the beginning Leonard (who is now in a relationship with Penny), Howard (who is now married to Bernadette) and Sheldon (who is ostensibly in a relationship with Amy) explain to their respective paramours that they are going to be playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons that night and that none of the ladies can come, because it is a guys only affair.

 

In a sort of retaliation, Penny and Bernadette and Amy plan a girls night out, complete with seductive dresses which they flaunt to their guys before they go out.

 

 

Meanwhile, during the D&D  game, a game that Dungeon Master Leonard has designed with an overt Christmas theme, has the boys on a quest to rescue Santa Claus from a bloodthirsty band of ogres. Overly enthusiastic Raj, in character, bursts into a room that is trapped, without checking beforehand for traps... something you should never do in a D&D game... even I know that, Raj... Raj's character dies and he appears to be doomed to be sidelined for the rest of the night.  But the girls come along with their taunting technique. And graciously allow Raj to accompany them on their "girl's night out".

 

Now, the scenes with Raj and the girls in the bar somewhat detract from the better part of the two-fold story line. Raj, as per usual, strikes out, and laments that the one's he is attarcted to always seem to be out of his reach. The girls try to help out getting Raj hooked up but have no more success than he does on his own.

Meanwhile, back in the apartment at the D&D game, the crew discover they have to use a variety of Christmas themed songs, including Sheldon insisting that they sing all four verses of Good King Wenceslas and having to play Jingle Bells on some bells to get a secret door to open. In the room beyond the door they find Santa Claus chained to a wall. But Sheldon throws a monkey wrench into the operation by throwing the key to free Santa into a chasm. He then relates why he hates Santa. It seems one year, when he was a young boy, he had asked Santa to bring his grandfather back, who had just recently died. And, of course, since Santa could not perform that miracle, Sheldon has harbored a resentment against him.

 

The denouement finds Sheldon waking up early Christmas to find Santa in his apartment. And Santa shoots him with a cannon for leaving him to be mauled and eaten by ogres in the D&D game. Then Sheldon wakes up from his nightmare. (Or was the whole episode part of his nightmare...?)

 

Big Bang Theory lasted 12 seasons. How much longer it might have gone on is a matter of conjecture. It wasn't declining in ratings numbers by the end of season 12. The main reason for the end was the fact that it's main star, Jim Parsons as Sheldon, had decided he wanted to move on. The character of Sheldon was an integral part of the series and the producers decided that, rather than recasting the part or developing a new character (both of which would probably have had a negative impact, if past history of television shows is any indication) , they would decide to just end the show. One of the more interesting developments in the final season was that the apartment elevator, which had been out of order since the beginning of the series, was finally repaired. It only took them 16 years. (It had been broken for 4 years by the time the series started...)

Well, Merry Christmas to all.

 

Quiggy 

 

A CMBA Honor

 

 

 

 

The Classic Movie Blog Association recently honored me with an admission to that elite club of bloggers. Here, a few months later, I was privileged to be highlighted in the blog (sort of a long introduction to my blog and blogging tastes and habits, as you will see...)

Most of what follows is my answers to questions that were posed. But the questions themselves are definitely the property of CMBA. The answers are my own, however. So, since I'm not sure about copyright issues, I firstly want to credit the text of this post to the CMBA.  The original post, should you want to see it, is here.

 

** Meet new CMBA member James Brymer, also known as Quiggy, the man behind the blog The Midnite Drive-In. Quiggy took the time to share more about himself and his passion for movies through the following Q&A.

 

 

Tell us a bit more about your site, The Midnite Drive-In, and what led you to start blogging. 

 

I have always had a love of movies. Years ago (2009) I started a general interest blog which was basically just random thoughts on any subject that came to mind. During the run of that blog, I had a weekly piece I titled "Quiggy's Saturday Night at the Movies." I gradually lost interest in keeping the blog going, however, and so the weekly movie session went with it.

 

Sometime in 2015, I no longer remember how I found it, I came across my first "blogathon." It was "The Universal Pictures Blogathon," hosted by Silver Scenes, and on impulse I joined it. I created The Midnite Drive-In, then, as an outlet so I could join a blogathon. The drive-in movie theater had always had an attraction to me, as well as a writer, Joe Bob Briggs, who had written a drive-in movie review column for a newspaper I delivered in my younger days.

 

Of course, because I was an avid blogathon addict I would review other genres of movies, but my main theme was the type of movies that usually found their following at drive-in movie theaters. The Midnite Drive-In serves one main purpose: To direct people to a style of film that might not be on the average person's mind and thus give the reader a chance to experience a whole new world of film-making (I hope).  

Besides horror and sci-fi, what are some of your other favorite film genres?

 

One of the genres that crop up often on The Midnite Drive-In is film noir. Interestingly enough, I never even really knew that the film noir genre existed until I saw Steve Martin's homage/parody to film noir, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. But as a result of seeing that movie, I actively began to seek out the films from which he used clips during the story. That gravitated me towards seeking out other movies in the same vein.

 

Additionally, I am a huge John Wayne fan. Mostly for his westerns, of course, but there are a couple of his non-westerns that figure prominently among my favorites. North to Alaska and Sands of Iwo Jima are two of his better films in the latter category.

 

A third category that frequently makes my movie night list is comedies. And the comedies can be from any era. My early adulthood stretches from 1980, so the early 80's comedies are among the top movies, but I also appreciate such classics as Arsenic and Old Lace and Duck Soup.

You write about both film and television at your site. What are your five favorite classic era series?

 

Oh, great! You want me to narrow down my favorite TV series to just five?

 

Well, to top the list I would have to include The Twilight Zone. I was either not even born yet or only a baby during the years of its initial run, but growing up in the 70's it was usually on in reruns and whenever it was I would try to watch it. The ironic twists at the end of the episodes always appealed to me and irony has influenced a lot of both my movie watching and reading ever since.

 

Growing up in the 70's my favorite (then current) TV shows were detective and crime shows. So naturally Columbo would be on that list. Columbo appealed to me not only because of the twist of having the audience know who the criminal was at the very outset, but watching the phenomenal Peter Falk as the title character in action.

 

At an early age I developed an interest in the phenomenon of UFOs, aliens, cryptozoological oddities like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and other such paranormal things, so another of my favorite shows was In Search Of, which investigated, weekly, such things that the average public dismissed as the fantasies of a fringe society. Being a member of said fringe society was an honor, not an embarrassment, for me.

 

I loved the campiness of the original Adam West Burt Ward Batman. Some of that show was so over the top it was ridiculous, but I think many of those guest star villains enjoyed the chance to play it up for laughs. Besides Caesar Romero's Joker, Burgess Meredith's Penguin, Frank Gorshin's Riddler and Julie Newmar's Catwoman (the Fearsome Foursome), my favorite villain was Vincent Price as Egghead. Price had such a feel for the comedic side of horror movies in his movie career and that translated well into the camp Batman series.

 

To round out this list, I am going to do a cheat. Many of the 70's TV shows I liked when I was a kid ended up only lasting only one, or sometimes two, seasons. Planet of the Apes and the original Battlestar:Galactica both had short runs. Also Project:UFO, which ran on the heels of the release of the files from the Project Blue Book government investigation of UFO sightings appealed to me.    

Why should people care about old films today?

 

Without a background as to how we got here, we can't really understand the present as well, in my opinion. This is the history major in me talking. You can't appreciate such movies as 28 Days Later without delving into its origins with Night of the Living Dead, or even before that with the way zombies had been presented in such classics as White Zombie. That's why often in my blog I point out some of the history leading up to the film I am reviewing.

Which three classic era films that you love do you think more people need to watch?

 

To get to the essence of the whole drive-in experience you would have to watch a film in each of what I refer to as the essential drive-in movie themes: beasts, bikes and babes.

 

As far as "beasts," you could go any number of directions, but one of my fondest memories of childhood was when my father took the family to the drive-in to see Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger. Although Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion creatures may seem quaint to the modern CGI-influenced viewer, the movie still holds up.

 

For the "bikes" category, it might seem a foregone conclusion to pick Easy Rider, but may I suggest a predecessor to that classic, The Wild Angels? This one also features Peter Fonda, as the leader of a motorcycle gang on the hunt for who stole fellow biker Bruce Dern's motorcycle, with all the mayhem that situation implies.

 

"Babes" could imply one of two different types of films when it comes to drive-in movies. One is of a theme that, in retrospect, is not entirely PC: movies that objectify women. But there is another category that is still appealing today, one in which the female lead is a kick butt fighter. Pam Grier made her early career playing such characters and Coffy is one of the best.

What is something that most people don’t know about you that you would like to share?

 

I have a sentimental side that I try to hide from the general public. I often say I don't cry at movies, but that's because I typically avoid movies that might have the potential to make the dam burst behind my eyes. Yes, I did cry at the end of Old Yeller.

 

Announcing the Film, Release. Repeat Blogathon

 

 

Hollywood has, for most of it's history, had a mindset of "why mess with a good formula?" Of course, that means that you get such things as, currently, 11 (count 'em... 11) sequels to the original 1984 film Children of the Corn.  Additionally, sometimes the studios in Tinseltown think they can improve on the formula by remaking a classic film. Sometimes those sequels and remakes hit a positive nerve and sometimes the public and the critics both howl with indignation and consternation at the chutzpah that the studios had to making such endeavors.

In terms of remakes, the standout successes with such endeavors such as the Humphrey Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon (which was actually the third attempt at the story, as there had been two previous film adaptations, in case you didn't know...) are paralleled to the Gus van Zant debacle of a remake, Psycho, the horrendous "tribute" to Alfred Hitchcock's original film, Psycho. Additionally, when Hollywood tries to capitalize on box office bonanzas by making sequels to great movies, the results can be equally varied. Many people consider Aliens, the second film in the Alien franchise to be one of the greatest sequels of all time. On the other hand, many fans refer to the Highlander sequel, Highlander III: The Final Dimension  as "Highlander: The Apology", because Highlander II: The Quickening is considered to be such a phenomenal dud.  

The essence of this blogathon is to address some of those classic and not-so-classic films that came out in the aftermath of beloved films. You can have your choice in your selection of the movie(s) you choose to review here. You can pick a remake or a sequel that improves on the original in some way, or you can choose to discuss a remake or a sequel that should never have been green-lighted in the first place. You are not limited to just the immediate sequel or remake in this. For example, one of the movies I am choosing for my part in the blogathon is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. The Star Trek franchise had four previous major motion picture releases prior to that, to varying quality in story and production.

Additionally, if you think a film got short shrift in it's reception, feel free to defend it with all your might. Maybe you think the van Zant Psycho was a better movie, who knows...? 

My co-host for this endeavor, Rachel at Hamlette's Soliloquy and I have a few guidelines to help you make your decision. 

1. Choose your movie(s) and notify either her or me of your choice. There are enough sequels and remakes out there to go around, so we are only going to allow only one person per movie. But the parameters are open to possibilities.  One person could choose to cover, say, Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol, while another could do Police Academy 2: The First Assignment, while still another could write an overview of the entire Police Academy franchise. The only real requirement here is that your entry focus more on the remake or the sequel, and not the original film. Try to limit yourself to two entries each for the blogathon,  so as to give others a chance at some beloved (or not-so-beloved) follow up attempts at greatness. 

2. Grab one of the banners that Rachel has made for this blogathon and promote the event. 

3. After you post the review, let one of us know of it's URL so we can link it in our wrap up post during the event.

4. Most importantly, have fun.

 

 

 

The Roster: (so far)

 Hamlette's Soliloquy: You've Got Mail (1998) {remake}

 The Midnite Drive-In: The Thing  (1982): {remake}

                                        Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) {sequel} 

NitrateGlow: You Can't Run Away from It (1956)  {remake} 

Cinematic Scribblings: Carmen's Innocent Love (1952) {sequel}

Angelman's Place: A Star is Born (1976) {remake} 

Classic Movie and TV Corner: An Affair to Remember (1957)  {remake} 

Realweegiemidget Reviews: Beyond the Poseidon Adventure  (1979) {sequel} 

Crítica Retrô: Gidget Goes Hawaiian (1961) {sequel}

Movies Meet Their Match: Top 10 sequels 

The Wonderful World of Cinema: Cape Fear (1991) {remake}

Hoofers and Honeys: comparison of The Mummy (1999) {remake} to the original. 

18 Cinema Lane: Lovey: A Circle of Children: Part II {sequel}

Silver Screenings: Blondie (1938) and Blondie Meets the Boss (1939) {sequel} 

The First Zombie

 

This is my entry in the Early Shadows and Pre-Code Horror Blogathon hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association.

 

 

 

The zombie film has evolved over the years. Gone are the days when a "zombie" in a film could easily be mistaken for a half-zonked drunken fraternity boy. Early films which featured zombies were often like that. I once reviewed a double feature of King of the Zombies/Teenage Zombies in which the zombies of the films were pretty much like that. It wasn't until George Romero came along with his classic Night of the Living Dead that we got the kind of zombies that most people are familiar with today, that of un-dead creatures seeking "brain food" for sustenance.

The initial reference to zombies in modern English culture were from the early 1800's. In this case, voodoo and zombies were closely connected. Thus the idea that those early zombies where basically creatures that walked around in a trance. You see, sometimes the zombies, at least in the Haitian voodoo folklore, are still alive,  just basically removed from their own cognizant will to operate as humans. And that was the case in two of the early zombie movies, White Zombie and I Walked with a Zombie. In both, the main heroine never actually dies, but is just put into an almost permanent hypnotic state. 

With hypnotism, the standard thinking is that, in the real world at least, a hypnotized person cannot be induced into doing something that he would not do in a cognizant state.  In the case of the voodoo zombie, however, that may or may not be the case.  Sometimes, at least as portrayed in film, the zombies can carry out the will of their masters which may even include killing another person. Unless the zombified person was originally of a mind that he or she could actually kill another in his or her cognizant state, that corollary related to hypnotism would seem to be not in effect if a person is turned into a zombie.

One of the things about zombie films is that they were often used as a metaphor for the current climate. In the above referenced Teenage Zombies, for instance, the zombies were obviously a substitute for Communists. But that was the 50's. Even so, there can be some political undertones even in movies that predate the Red Scare (or any other politically charged atmosphere).   

One of the things that could be underlying the basic plot line of White Zombie is the situation involving the main character, Murder Legendre, who is a plantation owner. He has created, essentially, his own "slave" population to run the drudgery of labor at the farm. Not that the makers would be trying to make a political statement in favor of the "slavery environment" of the 1700's and 1800's, but the world was still looking sideways when it came to the idea of big countries like France and England which still had "colonial rule" as a part of their acceptable rule. 

If you look at White Zombie as a criticism of this ideology, however, you may be  short changing yourself. After all, in the end, the black Haitian zombies all end up dying, not freed from their bondage, which would seem to be the proper way to approach it.  Of course, there is still some outrage at the idea here; that Legendre has essentially created slaves, albeit not live ones, who might object to their current situation. 

 One must take in the historical context of the movie. At the time of the film the United States was very involved in it's own form of imperialism. Imperialism is the concept, to put it bluntly, that a third world country is not capable of running its own business, at least not as it relates to the interest of the bigger country. In the case of countries like the Soviet Union, this often meant using a strong arm to enforce it's own agenda, in this case Communism. Not that the democratic country of the United States was any less aggressive in it's agenda, however. While using military force to impose its will is something that may make the average American cringe, the presence of American influence in Haiti was seen as a necessity to prevent another "less acceptable" power gaining control.

Thus, Murder Legendre and his influence over the population might be something akin to letting Hitler or Stalin gain a foothold in the country. But there seems to me to be another theme underlying the situation. Murder has influence that even extends to the white race. The titular "white zombie", after all is a white woman, with all the freedom that that implies in the context of the time period. Sure, it might be acceptable to "enslave" the indigenous Haitian population, but it is an entirely different matter when that extends to the white race.

Just down the road, time wise,  a demagogue (Hitler) would come to power to power in Germany and extend his own influence by enslaving the citizens of those countries in which he took power. Like the white zombie in this film, those citizens became virtually powerless to resist the influence of said demagogue. Likewise, another demagogue (Khrushchev) would exert similar control as the Soviets overtook countries in post World War II Europe.

Sure, this movie is a something of a predecessor to both of those tyrants, but the parallels are hard to ignore. So take another look at this classic with a view towards the underlying political themes that it holds. One can hardly feel that Murder Legendre is much better than Hitler or Khrushchev when looked at from this perspective.  

 

 

 

White Zombie (1932): 

On their way to be married in Haiti, Madeleine (Madge Bellamy) and Neil (John Harron) come across an odd ritual. Several natives are burying one of their own in the middle of a road. 

The ritual, as their coach driver (Clarence Muse) tells them, is to prevent grave robbers from stealing the body. Why would anyone steal a dead body? Well, it turns out that someone is turning the bodies into zombies, the animated undead. 

 

As the coach continues there is a man in the road ahead. This is our ultimate villain, Murder Legendre (Bela Lugosi), as it turns out. All you need to do is look into those haunting eyes, which makes both Madeleine and Neil cringe. But just as quick as they stop the driver hauls butt again because he sees zombies coming over the next ridge.

 

When the pair arrive at the home of Charles Beaumont, whom they have come to see, they meet Dr. Bruner (Joseph Cawthorn), a preacher who has been a missionary on the island for 30 years. He dismisses the zombie story as a legend and superstition. The pair are meeting with Beaumont, whom they barely know, because Beaumont has promised to make Neil his agent in his own enterprise. Seems they might have made friends with Beaumont just a little to easily (ah, the naivete of the 30's...) Beaumont has ulterior motives.

 

He had made his plantation available as a wedding site for the pair, but Beaumont has designs on Madeleine for himself. Barring the fact that she is wholly in love with Neil, Beaumont plans a little surprise that would make her wholly devoted to him instead. As he discusses his plans with his butler, Silver (Brandon Hurst), Silver tells Beaumont he wishes he would abandon his plan to work with "that other man". (We don't need to be told at this point that "that other man" is the previously met Murder Legendre, although we may not be sure exactly what Beaumont's plans have to do with hm.

Despite the fact that Beaumont only recently met Madeleine on the ship traveling from New York to Haiti, it is apparently that he is obsessed with her and determines to have her for himself.  He goes to meet Murder at his plantation, a plantation that is almost entirely run by people who are seemingly automatons. They don't even react when one of their number collapses and falls into the thresher they are operating.

 

Beaumont and Murder discuss the possibility of having her just disappear for a month, but Murder informs Beaumont that that would be not near enough time for her to forget Neil and become devoted to Beaumont. But... there is another possibility...

 

Murder suggests that Beaumont turn her into a zombie. This involves an elaborate plan to give her a potion which will make it seem like she died. Which Beaumont gives her just before the weeding. The result is, while the newly married couple are toasting each other after the weeding, Madeleine "dies".  Note: It is fortunate that she is put in a coffin and placed in a crypt without the benefit of embalming, otherwise this whole thing might end in tragedy before it even gets underway.

While Neil is drowning his sorrow in wine,  Murder and Beaumont go to the crypt to retrieve the body of Madeleine.  Murder informs Beaumont that all his servants are zombies. When Beaumont asks what would happen if they regain their souls, Murder tells them they would tear him apart. "But that will never happen..." After stealing the coffin Neil comes along and finds the crypt empty.

 

He meets with Dr. Bruner who informs Neil that there are two possibilities; either her body was stolen by a death cult for use in their ceremonies or possibly "she is not dead". Dr. Bruner tells Neil  about Murder's history, that of turning his enemies into soulless zombies, creatures that are not dead, but not entirely living either... the automatons that do the work of Murder without any resistance. ("Resistance is futile", as the Borg in Star Trek are fond of saying...)

 

But Dr. Bruner admits he does not think Beaumont is capable of doing this on his own, even though Neil suspects him of being behind it. The doctor thinks he must have had help from a witch doctor on the island and wants to get his hands on the witch doctor so he can make an example of him. And we all know who that witch doctor is, even if Dr. Bruner is not entirely sure.

Meanwhile Beaumont is having second thoughts about the situation and wants Murder to reverse the zombie status of Madeleine. But Murder has other ideas and tricks Beaumont into drinking some wine that has the potion that turns Beaumont into another zombie instead. Neil has found the secret lair of Murder where Madeleine is being held and tries to rescue her, but even his efforts are an uphill battle as Murder uses his spell to make Madeleine attempt to kill Neil.

 

The final minutes of the film are intense as a battle of wills occurs between Murder and Neil and Dr. Bruner, but even as Beaumont is gradually being turned into a zombie he still has some remnants of his dignity and the vague sense of right and wrong and may manage to save the day.

 

In my usual wrap of films I try to give some of the production values from the film, but my research doesn't have much. It was filmed in 1932, after all. The movie had a budget of $50,000. I'm not sure how much it actually grossed after it's release. It wasn't entirely received well, and some of that has to do with the acting.  Most of the actors appear to be thinking they are doing a stage play rather than a movie. There is much over-acting and overwrought emotion depicted in the film, as if the actors were, as they say, "playing to the back of the house". One such reviewer, one who wrote for Commonweal magazine, is quoted as saying that the movie is "interesting only in measure of it's complete failure" (quoted from a Wikipedia article).

Time has been better to the film, however. That great rating system, the Tomato-meter, has it as 86% Fresh, and it, being the first ever full-length zombie film, has a following who praise it. You probably already know that singer Robert Cummings, better known as Rob Zombie, is such a devotee of the film that he named his first band after the movie.

My own personal opinion is that, while not on par with Frankenstein and Dracula, it is still a fairly good movie for the most part. That overacting only really gets laughable in one or two scenes, particularly the scene where Neil is drinking himself silly and imagines he sees Madeleine everywhere. 

 

Bela Lugosi, as would be expected, is the highlight of the film. You can see the quality he brings to the part of Murder Legendre especially when he is just standing there and relying on his facial expressions to express his mood.

There have recently been a couple of attempts to get a remake of White Zombie underway, although apparently none by Rob Zombie. So far none of them have come to fruition. I wonder how the public would respond... If the new kid on the block, Blumhouse, is any indication of the direction it would take, it would probably rely more on shock than on characterization. We shall see.

Well, folks, the old Plymouth is now warmed up and ready to roll. I think if I see any stumbling people on the road I'll make a wide detour. Drive safely, folks.

Quiggy

 

Christmas Ghosts

 

 

 

 

Yes, folks! I'm back to my old Christmas in November tricks. Although, really, Christmas only figures in to about the first 15 minutes or so of this film, so it might be more of just a sentimental romance than anything. But, if you know me, you KNOW there has to be more than just that angle or it wouldn't be showing at The Midnite Drive-In... The ghost angle, of course, is what attracted me, even though the ghost angle was essentially played for laughs and sentimentality... 

Between the start of the cinema age and, roughly. the mid-50's the "ghost" theme seemed to crop up more for laughs and romance than actual "scare the pants off" trope. After all, one of the first films that portrayed a ghost, the 1898 The Haunted Castle, used the the ghost for "amusement, rather than fear". And over the years well into the 50's, comedy and romance were more central to ghost movies. Witness such films as Topper (1937), The Ghost Breakers (1940), Hold That Ghost (1941),   The Canterville Ghost (1944) or The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947).

To be sure, there WERE a smattering of seriously horror entries during that period. The Uninvited (1944) and Dead of Night (1945) are two examples of English language films that were released. But many of the more eerie films involving ghosts were usually of foreign (non-English) variety. The Phantom Carriage (1921; Sweden), La Llorona (1933; Mexico)  and Ghosts of Yotsuya (1949; Japan) were some of the creepier ones.

OK, so this film falls firmly into the category of "ghosts that aren't scary" line of movies. But even that is not what attracted me to this film. No, one of the draws for me was to see an early role by Richard Carlson, an actor who was in a few of my favorite science fiction films such as Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Magnetic Monster and It Came from Outer Space.

The rest of the cast consists mainly of character actors. The more well-known of these would probably have been Harry Carey, who had been a regular in many of the Poverty Row westerns of the silent and early sound westerns, as well as a frequent co-star with John Wayne. Also on that familiar name list would be Maria Ouspenskaya, who often played women of foreign nationalities, including a couple of times as a Gypsy woman Maleva in the Universal horror films, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Prior to this film she had been nominated for Oscars.

Rounding out the character actor troupe were Charles Winninger and C. Aubrey Smith. As well, Jean Parker and Helen Vinson both had significant female roles. Neither of those names were familiar to me, nor were they familiar to my sister, who has watched many more of those old mainsteam movies than I have.

 

 

 

Beyond Tomorrow (1940):

The film opens on Christmas Eve as three old bachelor entrepreneurs work on a project for the coming year. At least, two of them are anyway.  George Melton (Harry Carey) and Allen Chadwick (C. Aubrey Smith) have the bottom line foremost in their mind. Their third partner, Michael O'Brien (Charles Winninger) is much more of a free spirit, arriving with presents for everyone, and chides his partners for making everyone work through Christmas Eve.

 

When a telegram arrives that gives some bad news, that some expected guests for dinner will not be showing, both George and Allen become even more down on the holiday and the good will spirit of humanity, but Michael, ever the optimist, thinks they are both wrong. To prove his point he suggests that each of them throw out of the window a wallet with $10 and their cards and sees who will return the wallets. Both George and Allen are absolutely sure none of the wallets will be returned, but Michael insists they will, and that those good souls who return the wallets can be invited to Christmas Eve dinner to replace the missing guests.

 

One of the wallets is indeed kept by the person finding it, but two of them are returned. One is returned by a Texan who stayed after his rodeo left town, James Houston (Richard Carlson) and another is returned by a local schoolteacher, Jean Lawrence (Jean Parker). The two are invited to stay, and as could be expected in such fantasy worlds as movies like this, the two hit it off. Over the course of a few weeks, a love blossoms and there is talk of even marriage.

 

It turns out that James can sing. (and it also turns out, to my surprise, that it really is Carlson who is singing in those musical numbers...) He plans to get work as a singer, the better to help him make enough to be a good and productive husband. 

 

The three benefactors make plans to fly to Philadelphia. Their housekeeper, Madame Tanya (Maria Ouspenskaya), begs them to take the train instead but they insist she is overreacting. But as often is the case, these Eastern European women seem to have a sixth sense about the future, because the three do end up dying, and returning to the mansion where they had lived. Thus we get our three ghosts.

 

The three men, while still living, had bequeathed a series of bonds to the couple so they could afford to get married. This sets off a sequence of events where the story is picked up by the newspapers and James is offered a tryout for a radio program. At the tryout he meets Arlene Terry (Helen Vinson) an established singer who invites him to meet her manager. (BTW, I found out later that the woman in the beginning of the film who keeps the money and ditches the wallet instead of returning it was this same woman... Sort of hints at just what kind of woman she is, given that.)

 

The three ghosts watch on in dismay as it looks like James might be going down the wrong path. He becomes more involved with trying to advance his career (and in the process alienating Jean). He also seems to be developing an infatuation for his singing partner. Arlene, however, has her own past to deal with, including an alcoholic ex-husband who is unwilling to let bygones be bygones.   

You can see it coming from a mile away. As James and Arlene's relationship advances Jean becomes more and more convinced she is losing him. And the ex-husband is determined that if he can't have Arlene, by gum, no one can. 

In between all this the archangels in Heaven keep returning for the lost souls of the three men. Ultimately both Charles and Allen are taken, but when the Heavenly hosts finally return for Michael, he insists that he can't go until the situation between James and Jean is resolved. And things look bleak for that when the ex-husband shows up where James and Arlene are meeting and shoots them both.

But remember, folks, this is not only 1940, but it's also supposed to be a feel good movie. So don't start crying yet.

Beyond Tomorrow has it's flaws. For one thing, James is a rather shallow character, played rather shallowly by Carlson. Just when you start to feel good about a guy who seems to really want to find his place in life, complete with the requisite girl of his dreams, he goes off on a jaunt to find fame and fortune, neglecting said girl of his dreams. He is easily distracted by cute girl of the moment. It appears at the outset that this might be just a part of the part she can play in helping his career, but then the character of James is tarnished by the fact that he can't seem to differentiate between what is good for his career and what is good for his home life. Although he initially still has his devotion to Jean, he seems to be unable to resist the wiles of the bad girl, Arlene.

One can easily see why Arlene's first marriage did not work out. I'm not entirely sure that her ex-husband didn't become an alcoholic after the fact, rather than, as she says, the alcoholism was part and parcel of what led her down the road to divorce. In that instance, even though she is a cardboard cutout character of a "bad woman" I think that Helen Vinson imbues her with just enough subtlety to give her some dimension. 

The three main characters of the men/ghosts are much better. Especially Winninger has the ever optimistic Michael.  The sad part is that they don't seem to have much to do in the story after the transformation from living to deceased. Mostly they seem to just stand around and shake their heads in despair at how James is ruining his chances for true love. But Ouspenskaya has some bright spots as the intuitive Madame Terry, and even though she can't see he ghosts, she knows they are there and has a rapport with them.

Calling this a Christmas movie is not quite right, but the feelings and it's overall message is something akin to A Christmas Carol, because the character of Allen does eventually transition from the curmudgeonly Scrooge-like man while still alive to a change of heart at the end. And the final realization of James that the life he really wants is the one he already has can be something like Jimmy Stewart's George Bailey's transformation in It's A Wonderful Life. 

 So, is this a good movie? Overall, I would say yes. 

Good tidings for the coming season.

Quiggy