Sometimes Time Creeps Up On You

 

Getting old is not for the squeamish. Or the weak. Or the timid.

What the hell, getting old is not for anybody, really...

I was reading a book on Stephen King films and came across a chapter in it on "needless sequels" to King films (Stephen King Films FAQ by Scott Von Doviak). It should be noted that that disparaging designation "needless sequels" is the author's phrase, not mine. The chapter is titled "Sometimes Dead is Better: A Return to Salem's Lot, Pet Semetary Two and Other Needless Sequels" (Chapter 29 if you have a copy of the book). 

I can't say I disagree with ALL of the selections the author points out in this section. (BTW, he devotes a whole 'nother chapter to the seemingly endless sequels to Children of the Corn, {what are we up to now... Children of the Corn XX...?} so at least he has SOME semblance of decorum...). Personally I never really liked the first Firestarter, so when the Sci-Fi Channel inflicted a sequel with a grown up Charlie on the public I was not one of those who looked forward to it. And several other sequels that have been made to follow (and "sucker in" fans of) better movies have not impressed me, probably more often than not.

Still, in my younger and more impressionable days, there was a sequel that I highly anticipated that did get me. I was a huge fan of the original Creepshow. So when a sequel was announced I was one of the first people in line to buy a ticket on opening day of Creepshow 2. 

While I was reading Von Doviak's book it occurred to me that I hadn't seen Creepshow 2 since it first hit the theaters back in 1987. (That's nearly 40 years! See what I mean about getting old? I feel older just noting that...and I felt just fine before I realized it was 40 years...) 

I have quite a number of King movies in my collection, but this was one I have never run across when I have browsed the stacks of my local used DVD store. I remembered fondly two of the three stories in the film ("Old Chief Wood'nhead" and "The Raft"), but, to be honest, I really didn't remember anything about whatever the third story in the film was until I re-watched it just now. (That one is called "The Hitch-hiker"). 

Von Doviak's main disparaging comment, that the film "creatively...looks like leftovers", seems to be a little harsh to me. The whole concept of the Creepshow series of films (as well as the TV series that followed them) was all about an homage to the old EC comics from the 50's, such as The Vault of Horror and Tales from the Crypt, and many of the comic book stories come off as leftovers if you read the originals. There are a few reprints in book form out there if you are interested in seeking them out.

The stories included in this sequel are just about equal to the ones in the first film, especially the one called "The Raft", which I would take over "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" from the first film any day...

The three stories in this one come off kind of like a poor man's version of a Twilight Zone episode, complete with a hinted at morality lesson at the end. At least for two of them. (You have to work at getting a morality lesson out of "The Raft", since the only really "bad" thing the teenagers do is smoke a joint... and for that they have to die? If that's the case about 20% or 30% of the population would be slated for morality lessons...)

40 years later I still like Creepshow 2, although the subpar acting on some of the characters does come off a bit ridiculous. None of the kids on the raft are really great, even though I still think it is the better of the three stories.

 

Creepshow 2 (1987): 

It's interesting to note than when the original sequel was conceived, and slated to be done by a major studio, there were actually going to be 5 stories used for this anthology. When New World Pictures took over, the new studio jettisoned two of the stories. Whether either of them would have improved the film is hard to say. I like the idea of an evil bowling league getting revenge, which is one of the ones left out. The other story, called "The Cat from Hell", actually was filmed for an episode of Tales from the Darkside, so we do have that to fall back on.

 

The first segment, "Old Wood'nhead", is probably the least suspenseful and the horror part of the story takes a pretty long time to come to fruition. Before we get to the meat of the horror we are treated to a long introduction to a pair of kindly old souls, Ray (George Kennedy) and Martha (Dorothy Lamour), who run a general store that has seen better days. George does his best to keep the store going because, despite the dwindling economy, the members of the community need him.

 

But there are some bad elements in town. Led by Sam (Holt McCallany) three hoodlums attempt to rob the old couple and ultimately kill them. 

 

Finally, the horror part kicks in as  a wooden cigar store Indian that George is devoted to keeping looking fresh comes to life to exact revenge. (Yes, I said wooden cigar store Indian...) The Indian looks pretty unscary, to be honest, even when it does start to come to life. And I would gladly have exchanged this story for any of the other two that got scuttled. But fortunately the rest of the movie was really good.

 

The second story, "The Raft", involves two pairs of teenagers who are out to spend a day floating on a raft in the middle of a lake. The lake is deserted at this time of year because it is off season for the tourists that would have been around in the summer. (I think this is supposed to be in the fall, after the lake crowd has gone back to their mansions in the city, but it could be early spring... Either way, the teens make a point of noting that the lake is pretty cold.

 

They all get to the raft before they notice a peculiar looking oil slick on the lake. But it's NOT an oil slick... It moves of it's own accord, and it turns out to be some kind of carnivorous being (although it doesn't transform into a giant shark or anything like that, which would have probably detracted from it's scariness..) 

 

It gradually picks off each teenager, one by one, ultimately giving us a lesson in observing surroundings, because at the end of the segment we see a sign, hidden by some bushes, which clearly says "No Swimming"...

Note: To keep this blog on a family friendly level, 

I'm not going to post any pics of the slick taking out the teens. 

Most of it is pretty graphic...  

The third segment, "The Hitch-hiker", really hits that morality tale trope on the head. What we essentially have is a woman, played by Lois Chiles, who is cheating on her husband. (Let this be a lesson to you, whether you are male or female... don't get into any extramarital relationships, or... YOU'LL BE SORRY...!) 

 

As she is trying to get home before her husband gets home from work the woman accidentally hits and kills a hitchhiker on the side of the road. Instead of pulling over, of course, she panics and makes it a case of hit and run. Only the only part of that she seems to get right is the "hit" part, because the "run" part doesn't pan out. The hitchhiker keeps showing up, in more and more beat up condition, saying "Thanks for the ride lady!" (It is somewhat reminiscent of how Griffin Dunne's character keeps showing up to try to get David Naughton to kill himself in An American Werewolf in London.)

 

"The Hitch-hiker" is a pretty cool episode, a bit graphic on occasion, and it called to mind the classic Twilight Zone episode where the woman keeps seeing the same hitchhiker as she is trying to cross the country (although that one has no gory scenes at all...)

My opinion on the second watch of this film is that it was not nearly as good as I remembered, but hardly worth the level of putdown that Von Doviak gave it. A reading of several reviews that I researched for this entry fall in line with my own opinion: a) that it's not all that bad, and b)  most of them agreed that the better of the the three was the middle story.

There is, as was in the first movie, a connecting device involving a young comic book fan, in cartoon form,  who is being harassed by a gang of malcontents. The malcontents, of course, getting their just desserts at the end (or maybe that should be better phrased "becoming just desserts"...) 

 

Unlike the third movie in this cycle, Creepshow 3, this movie still had the King hand in it. All three stories were by the horror master. As I understand it, neither Stephen King or George Romero had anything to to do with #3, and it remains to be seen whether I'll even give it a watch. (Probably I will, but I have a lot on my plate right now... it was an unscheduled halt in other projects that even led me to cover this one... maybe in 2027).

Creepshow 2 made a fairly decent profit, not big, but at $4 million to make it managed to pull in $14 million at the box office. Echoing Von Doviak, it wasn't entirely well received by the critics. It currently only has a 36% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The critical consensus can be summed up with one reviewer who said "[d]espite its strengths -- a livelier pace, some creatively gory set-pieces -- this is a much cheaper-looking effort than its predecessor..." OK, in all fairness Creepshow is WAY better than Creepshow 2, but it's still a fun watch.

Gotta fire up the old Plymouth and head home. Drive safely, folks. And, please, keep your eyes on the road, and stay away from those remote swimming holes.

Quiggy

 

 

 

The Red Planet Menace

 

 

This is my entry in the Classic Literature on Film Blogathon hosted by Silver Screen Classics.

The science fiction world would be a lot smaller without the classic trope of alien invasions.  I am not sure what qualifies as the very first example of "alien invasion" in literature, but wikipedia lists a couple that pre-date the H. G. Wells classic The War of the Worlds. Neither is one I had ever heard of, however. The most intriguing of these antecedents is one titled The Germ Growers by Robert Potter, which I didn't have time to read prior to this post, but the link above looks to have the text. I will give it a go when I have time. The gist seems to be that aliens, who are able to look like humans, are busy trying to grow a fungus that will eliminate the Earth of that pesky infestation of humans so they can take over the planet.

 

The one that the majority of you will have ever come into contact with, however, is the Wells book.

 

Written in 1898, it involves an invasion of Martians on Earth who are seeking better living conditions. As Wells states in his first chapter, Mars has gradually become inhospitable due to the fact that it is a dying planet; "the light and heat it receives from the sun is barely half of that received by this world", he says, and "we know now that even in its equatorial region the midday temperature barely approaches that of our coldest winter."

So, with greedy eyes cast sun-ward to their nearest neighbor, they see a planet that has a better climate and is more conducive to life that they really want. And since the Martians are far more technologically advanced than their neighbors, they have the means necessary to take the planet by force. (Some analysts of the Wells novel think that War of the Worlds is a critical comment on the idea of imperialism; that the higher technologically advanced race has a sort of "God given" right to dominate over a lesser race.)

The first half of the novel involves the coming of the Martians and their unprovoked attack on Earthlings. Being far more superior in firepower it is fairly easy for them to wreak havoc on the natives. It later becomes apparent that the Martians are not going to be satisfied with the elimination of humans; they are also going to harvest them for sustenance.

Eventually, spoiler alert!, the Martians are defeated, not by humans, but by the one thing that the Martians did not count on... common bacteria to which the humans are mostly immune... the common cold!

The problem, when it came to trying to put the classic novel to film, was that technology advanced to a point where, except for being able to traverse the vastness of space in reasonable swiftness, much of the Martian technology that Wells envisioned for his Martians eventually became a reality. For instance, the "death ray" in the novel is not entirely dissimilar to laser technology we have today. And the mechanical tripods that the aliens were able to employ against a "horse and carriage" are like child's play today in a society that now has tanks and jet airplanes, etc.

The first movie to try to make the novel come to life solved the problem by transposing the events from early 1900's to mid 1950's. (It was made in 1953). This is the classic story, more or less, except that, in addition to updating the Earth's technological capabilities and the still more advanced alien technology, the setting is transposed from England to California. While there are plenty of references to the novel, including an introduction that basically echoes the opening of Wells' story, the changes tend to date the movie just as much as the original novel.

 

That's pretty much the downfall, in my opinion, of any of the subsequent attempts. It's still a little early, I admit, to say that the Spielberg version from 2005, starring Tom Cruise, is dated at this point in history, but I feel sure if humanity survives for another 50 years it will look as quaint as the 1953 version does to us today.  

 

Note: as often happens, there was a direct-to-video knockoff that came out the same year starring C. Thomas Howell. And, as much as I loathe Tom Cruise as an actor, I have to admit that the big screen theatrical version is miles ahead, not only in story, but also in special effects. (Those Martian machines in the Howell version just made me "howl" {pun intended})  

 

The thing is, if you film a classic novel in it's original milieu you are much more likely to get a thumbs up from me. As I have stated before, my favorite Sherlock Holmes films are ones that have Holmes firmly entrenched in his gaslight and hansom cab Victorian era setting (the BBC Sherlock is an exception to that feeling). So, it was attractive to me when I came across a British made film that purported to stay true to the original novel. Coincidentally (or maybe not), this version also appeared at the same time as the Spielberg film.

 

The story itself is, to be honest, quite close to the novel. It does take place in the Victorian era. There are several instances where some minor details are changed, but none that really detract from it for a purist point of view. There are several points that do make this a less than stellar output. For one thing, often the special effects look like they were done on a miniscule budget. The aliens in particular, although looking quite a bit like I would envision them by the description that Wells gives them, don't particularly look all that well made. 

 

 

And occasionally one or more of the actors seem like they were just cast because they "looked" the part, without having the necessary acting chops to pull it off. (In particular, I think Jack Clay, who played "Oglivy" was pretty laughable. His IMDb page seems to play that out... this is his only film. Was he he friend of the director or something? To his credit he was an acting teacher... maybe his career as an actor was limited to the stage). 

Recently Amazon Prime released a new version starring Ice Cube. Unfortunately I have not been able to watch it, but it has garnered a slew of disparaging reviews. One reviewer called it "truly morally icky", which you know is enough of an incentive for me to give it it a try someday... It almost completely swept the Razzies for 2025, winning in all the categories for which it was nominated except one. (Ice Cube and his camera lost the Worst Screen Couple award to the seven dwarves in Snow White).

 

If you are looking for great special effects, my opinion is go with the Spielberg version (which had a bigger budget to work with than the 1953 version). If you are looking for great acting. then stick to the 1953 version. I'll take Gene Barry over Tom Cruise any day... But if you'd like to see a version that sticks to it's source material, you can't go wrong with the British version. 

Above all, however, if you have never read the source novel, what are you waiting for? It's a classic.

Well, time to fire up the old Plymouth and head home. If there is still a home to go to. I just saw something flash in the sky over to my East...

Quiggy

 

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Peoject #28: Attack of the Giant Leeches

 

 

 

 

 

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 #28: Florida -

 

 

 

The state of Florida was established on Mar. 3, 1845

Details about Florida:

State bird: Northern mockingbird

State flower: orange blossom

State tree: palmetto

Additional historical trivia:

For drive-in fans: In Ft. Lauderdale there is a drive-in theater that has the most screens, with 14 of them. 

Carabelle is noted for having the world's smallest police station. It's a phone booth. 

The oldest continuously settled community in the U.S. is located in Augustine.

If you love golf, there are more golf courses in Florida than any other state. (Makes sense).

For fans of one of my favorite T.V. shows, In Search Of, Florida is home to Coral Castle. This structure was supposedly built by one man, and has some stones that weigh tons. 

Famous people born in Florida: Tom Petty, Jim Morrison (lead singer of the Doors), Ronnie, Johnny and Donnie Van Zant, (brothers who fronted Lynyrd Skynyrd and 38 Special), Sidney Poitier, Wesley Snipes, Matthew Stafford, Deion Sanders, Janet Reno and Marco Rubio.  

 

 

 

 

 

 Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959): 

 

First thought: This movie should probably have been called Attack of the Giant Trash Bags. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my life, (and believe me I have seen a LOT!) these monsters are probably some of the most laughable (and that's even considering A*P*E*...).  There is some interesting background to this, however. Roger Corman, always on the lookout to cut the budget down to the bare bones, had the guys who played the monsters design their own costumes. Zip! Why pay a costume designer when you can just get the actors, who you already are paying, to do the job for you?

Attack of the Giant Leeches was made for about $70. (Just kidding! It was actually made for about $70,000, but it LOOKS like it was made cheaper...)  

It was directed by Corman stalwart Bernard L. Kowalski, who had more success as a TV director. He directed some episodes of Columbo, as well as episodes of Magnum P.I., Knight Rider, Baretta and Jake and the Fatman. This was his third big screen effort. He had previously directed Hot Car Girl and Night of the Blood Beast, both for Corman's AIP studios.  This one was originally released as a double feature with A Bucket of Blood. 

 

The movie starts out slam bang as a local poacher in the swamps fires upon a creature he sees. He pumps several bullets into it, but when he tells the locals, no one is able to find the body, so they assume the guy was drunk, and probably just shot an an oversized alligator. (All back country characters in these movies are alcoholics, did you ever notice that...?)

 

Apparently these mysterious creatures living in the swamp have resentment issues, because the guy turns up dead not long after.

The local game warden, Steve (Ken Clark) is of a mind that the culprit is a renegade alligator and goes out looking for it with his girlfriend, Nan (Jan Shepard), but comes up empty. Meanwhile the mysterious predator, (it is still assumed that there is only one), continues to ravage unlucky souls who find themselves in the swamp at the wrong time. Only the rest of the victims keep disappearing, as far as the local constabulary is concerned.

 

 

Steve thinks this "gator" is dragging it's victims underwater to some hideaway. The local sheriff (Gene Roth) wants to set off some dynamite charges to try to uncover the missing bodies, and hopefully kill the "gator" in the process. but Steve is adamant about preserving the pristine swamp and thinks that dynamite might damage the environment.

 

The next victims to fall prey to the creatures are the wife of Dave (Bruno VeSota), a local storekeeper, and her secret lover. See, Liz (Yvette Vickers) is the essence of a tramp. She has been cheating on Dave with his best friend, Cal (Michael Emmett). And you just know these two sinners are going to get what they deserve... Although maybe not the way that one would expect.

 

Dave figures out that Liz is cheating on him and goes looking for her and finds her in  flagrante delicto with Cal. He is going to shoot them both, apparently, and Cal, being the cad that he is, tries to pin the blame all on Liz. Dave chases Liz and Cal through the swamp, and when he finally corners them near the water's edge he gets his revenge in an unexpected way as one of the creatures shows up.

No one believes Dave when he tells of seeing the creature, however. They assume, with reasonable assurity,  that Dave killed them both and dumped the bodies in the swamp. This eventually leads to a couple of locals going out into the swamp hoping to find the bodies and get some reward money. And, no spoiler alert, they become victims themselves to the creatures. 

Eventually Steve works out that the creatures are leeches, somehow transformed into giant size due to all that nuclear activity that is being done nearby. (Of course it's "nuclear radiation"... what other guilty party could be blamed in a 50's monster movie...?)

At one point the sheriff decides, on his own, to go against the advice of Steve and set off dynamite charges. And most of the bodies end up floating to the surface. Steve and a friend go underwater looking for the leeches and a battle occurs and eventually (maybe) the creatures are defeated.

 

One has to wonder: Are there only two of the leeches that were affected by the radiation? That's all we see. The movie ends, as usual, on a happy note that the threat has been vanquished, but I couldn't help but think: the swamp appears to be devoid of any creatures other than the leeches. It is never stated outright, but I think you are supposed to decide the leeches eliminated the other swamp denizens like the alligators. Did these two do all that all by themselves?

As noted above, don't go into this movie expecting some horrific monsters. Often those creatures look exactly like what they are in real life, just a couple of guys in decorated trash bags. The acting is not exactly top notch, either. Yvette Vickers, despite the fact that she is playing a stereotypical backwaters tramp, is about the best part of it. (And, yes, I am giving her some points for a scene of her in a bathing suit...)

At only 60 minutes in length, it won't use up too much of your time to give it a go. Admittedly there seems to be a few scenes where they are padding the scene and extending sequences just to get the movie up to a full hour. The scene where Dave chases Liz and Cal in particular takes up about 5 or 6 more minutes than might be necessary, and you can't help but wonder why the two couldn't put more distance between them and their pursuer. Especially since Dave has to stop every now and then to fire off his rifle or reload it.

I disparaged Teenage Zombies way back at the beginning of my movie review blogging for it's obvious efforts to pad a 45 minute TV show into a full length feature film, so I would be disingenuous if I didn't do the same here. But Giant Leeches has a phenomenally better acting output. (If you've watched Teenage Zombies, you know that's not hard to accomplish, but be that as it may).

So the end result is that Attack of the Giant Leeches is worth a watch if you appreciate cheesy low budget schlock like I do. Just don't go into it expecting Godzilla, or for that matter, The Horror of Party Beach. I think it's better to watch it for the unintentionally funny stuff than it is for its strictly horror output.

 

Drive safely, folks. Especially if you have to cross a swamp on the way home.

Quiggy

 

Hillbilly Hamlet

 

 

The following is a guest post by my friend Jim Bob Turner: I made a few editorial notes, but it's mostly his thoughts. For the most part you should be able to figure out to what or whom he is referring without my help. -Quiggy

 

 

Hamlet (1948):

OK, so my buddy Quiggy said he was tryin' to "expand my whore risin's". Hey! He said it, not me... and where them "whores" was in this movie, I can't say. I sure didn't see any...

But anyways, I'm good buddies with him, so I sat down an' watched this here movie on his say so. It was about some guy, I think he was called Hambone, or something like that. "Hambone". Sounds like my kind of guy, I'm going in thinking maybe this guy an' me could get together and share some good recipes. He might even have a good recipe for fried possum...

 

Anyways, the movie starts off with some guy saying that this is the "story of a man who could not make up his own mind...", and right away I'm thinking maybe this guy he's talkin' about tips the jug a little too much.  I get the same way, especially when I've drunk a little too much of cousin Cletus' moonshine. Cletus may not be able to add two and two together and come anywheres close to 5, but he does make a pretty mean batch of mountain dew...

I should point out at the start that this Hambone character comes from some play from about 1000 years ago. I think it was a play that Miz Winfred wanted us to read for English class back in my high school days. It was writtened by some guy named William Shake A Spear. I didn't read it, of course. I got the class nerd to help. It might actually have been my friend, Quiggy (ed. note: it wasn't me... I didn't meet Jim Bob until after high school). He gave me a quick 5 minute sum up. I didn't think I missed much.

 

So, anyway, the movie starts out with some guys who are guards on a balcony and they are talking about one of them claiming that he seen this ghost of the old king, who later turns out to have been Hambone's daddy. See, some time before this point, Hambone's daddy had died. His uncle, Claude, ended up marryin' Hambone's mother and now his uncle is his stepdaddy. Sounds like normal to me... what's the big deal...?

 

I guess Hambone didn't take to kindly to his uncle Claude becomin' his new daddy. He seems to think there's sumpin' fishy going on in Denmark, which is home country. Hey, "sumpin's fishy in Denmark"! I think I came up with a new phrase! I like that better'n the line in the movie... (ed. note: Jim Bob is referring to the line in the play/movie "something is rotten in Denmark." I have to admit I like Jim Bob's line better myself. too.) 

Hambone seems to be so glum about the whole situation that I think he's even thinking about suicide. I think that's the whole point behind that earlier dig at him, when the guy says the movie is about a guy who can't "make up his mind.." At one point Hambone even has an argument with hisself, tryin' to decide whether or not to drink the kool-aid. (ed. note: Jim Bob is referring to that famous piece known as "Hamlet's Soliloquy".)

So the guards decide they gotta tell Hambone what they seen. An' Hambone, thinkin' he's just gotta see for hisself, goes with them to the next guard watch. Hey, gotta give ol' Hambone some credit for having guts. You wouldn'a got me up on that balcony... There he meets up with ghost daddy and his daddy tells him the truth of what happened. Hambone's daddy, the former king, had no name in this picture, or I guess in the Shake A Spear play either. Leading me to ask that one question... hey, Hambone...who's your daddy?

Hambone learns of the truth behind daddy's death from the ghost. It turns out that Claude dumped some poison into Hambone's daddy's ear and killed him. Hambone decides that the best thing for him to do is to somehow prove that Claude is a bad guy. He decides he is gonna try to act like he's gone crazy. Hambone missed his calling. He shoulda been a stage actor, because he manages to pull off this play acting. 

 

At least he does as far as his mommy, Gertie, and his girlfriend, Filly, is concerned. 

 

But Claude suspects that Hambone may not be as crazy as he's puttin' on to be. Watch out, Hambone. Any guy that would kill his own brother is not a guy you wanna even play lawn darts with, much less try to trick. 

 

Claude gets his advisor, Possum to spy on Hambone. Possum thinks Hambone may not be faking it however. But he thinks the madness might have something to do with Filly, who as it turns out, is Possum's daughter. Hambone continues to play the part even when he thinks no one else is watchin', so he convinces Filly that he's done lost it, too.

 

But wily old Hambone, he ain't done yet. He gets a band of wandering actors to put on a play for Claude, but he gets them to change part of the usual play by puttin' in a scene that includes the same evil deed that Claude pulled on his daddy, hoping that Claude's guilty conscience will get the better of him. But when it comes down to it, Claude starts to pray for forgiveness and Hambone, who was gonna kill him, decides that he can't go through with it. Not because he himself has some kind of change of heart; he's just worried that Claude will be forgiven and let into Heaven, and Hambone wants him to go the other direction. (You gotta appreciate such focus on gettin' revenge).

The story gets a little more twisted as it goes on. Claude sends Hambone to Limey country (ed. note: He means England.) The plan is that some friends that Claude has will kill Hambone while he's there and keep Hambone outta his hair. But Hambone and his ship get attacked by pirates. I just thought of a movie I watched years ago where this kid says "Gettin' killed by pirates is good..." But Hambone don't get killed by them pirates. He gets returned to Denmark. And I guess Claude is startin' think what's a guy gotta do to get rid of his enemies... 

I forgot to point out that at one point Hambone accidentally killed Possum. Torn up by the death of her father, and the fact that Hambone seems to have lost his hold on being sane, Filly killed herself by jumping in a pond and drowning. Filly had a brother, Larry, who had shown up after his daddy's death and wants revenge. So Claude and Larry arrange a good ol' fashioned duel. My buddies over in Kentucky, the McCoys, woulda been proud. Them lowdown Hatfields would have deserved the same kind of showdown.

There's some sneaky little goings on involving fixin' up a sword with poison so that when Larry nicks Hambone he is gonna die toot sweet. All'n' of the bad guys gets their come uppance in the end. Too bad Hambone is one of them. I kinda liked him. Now I'll never get his recipe for pork chitlins...

 

Quiggy: Well, thanks Jim Bob. 

Hope you folks enjoyed Jim Bob's foray (actually mine, just in case you are slow on the updraw...) into the artistic world.

And, BTW, if you'd like another angle on Hamlet, check out Renaissance Man. As with my review of that movie, this one is dedicated to Rachel of Hamlette's Soliloquy, who I hope likes this take on her favorite Shakespeare play.

Drive safely, folks.

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #27: The Rosary Murders

 

 

 

 

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 #27: Maryland -

 

 

The state of Michigan was established on  January 26, 1837

Details about Michigan:

State bird: robin

State flower: apple blossom

State tree: white pine

Additional historical trivia:

48222. The only zip code in the world that has 0 population. It's a boat that floats on the Detroit River and delivers mail to other ships.

The state is divided into the "upper peninsula" and the "lower peninsula", and is one of only 5 states that does not have all of it's land mass in one contiguous mass.  

"Yoopies" (not to be confused with "yuppies") is the name for people who reside in the upper peninsula. U.P.s, get it? 

There are more lighthouses in Michigan than any other state, due to the need for them on the Great Lakes.

Speaking of the Great Lakes, Michigan is the state where the wreck of the famous Edmund Fitzgerald occurred.

Credit (or blame, as your political affiliation may be) Michigan for the Republican Party. The first Republican Party meeting took place in Ripon. 

Famous people born in Michigan: Casey Kasem, Tom Selleck, Madonna, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Michael Moore, Jim Bakker and numerous sports figures, including Magic Johnson, Serena Williams and George Gipp (the original "Gipper").

 

 

 

The Rosary Murders (1987):

The Rosary Murders may be a difficult movie for some. For one thing, one of the primary things that hinge on the plot is the fact that the main character, a Catholic priest, hears the confession of a man who admits that he is committing a rash of murders, but that he, the murderer, is not going to stop. But since the priest has heard about it through a confessional, he is bound by his profession and faith in his role as a priest to not reveal this to anyone. (And, by the way, that is apparently a true fact in the Catholic Church; the priest could be subject to excommunication. I got this from a website in which a real priest in the Church addressed the issue).

The other issue, and this is the one that may push this movie into a realm that you might not want to address, even if you are watching it alone. The main criminal character is committing these murders as a result of guilt and blame against the Church for it's lapse of strength in getting him to stop committing incest with his daughter, which ultimately led to her committing suicide.

Having been forewarned, I leave it up to you whether to continue even reading this blog entry.

The movie is based on the first book in a series of murder mysteries which was written by William X. Kienzle.   The screenplay was written by none other than Elmore Leonard, a man who could fashion good nail-biting scripts on his own. 

William X. Kienzle

Elmore Leonard

 

The problem early on is the almost supersonic speed in which it opens, seemingly trying to jam about a hundred pages of story into the first 15 minutes. However, if you can go along with this, the rest of the movie does manage to slow down enough for you to follow along.

The first murder is not so nearly as gruesome as one might expect. In fact, given the circumstances, you might not even realize a murder had taken place. The priest (and all the victims are either priests or nuns) is on life support and dies. It is only revealed a little later in the film that his life support equipment had been unplugged.

Father Robert Koesler (Donald Sutherland) is introduced as he converses with a girl who confides in him that she wants to resign from the nunnery in order to get married. Unfortunately for her, she becomes the second victim in a series of murders that targets Detroit Catholic Church leaders. The murderer has taken to leaving his calling card with the victims; a black rosary wrapped around the victim's left hand.

 

A love interest (of sorts) makes it's way into the film as a female reporter, Pat Lennon (Belinda Bauer), investigates these deaths. The "love interest" portion is fully on Pat, however. As a Catholic priest, Father Koesler is not allowed such human frailties as "sexual attraction". (I'm not going into any outside history with this, so just chill...) 

 

Also involved in this story is a police lieutenant. Kosnicki (Josef Sommer), who thinks that not only can Koesler help solve the crime, but also that maybe Koesler is hiding something. 

 

Which, in fact, Koesler is... See, the murder approached Koesler via the confessional booth and basically told the priest flat out that he was the murder. This leaves Koesler in a moral dilemma, since as a priest he is bound by certain rules of the Church that he can't reveal anything he heard in confession, including the admission of murder.  

Koesler thus becomes an amateur sleuth, trying to determine the identity of the killer without crossing the threshold of the sanctity of the confessional. He only has as his primary clue is that the murderer is committing his acts because of the death of his 16 year old daughter. (It is only later that he discovers the actual truth; her suicide brought on by remorse from the illicit, immoral actions of her father.)

 

I can't decide whether the solution to this crime is ingenious or just plain stupid. Without giving it away entirely, the solution has it's roots in something Biblical (much like the way Dr. Phibes disposes of his enemies in The Abominable Dr. Phibes). 

Just a note: I rather liked Kienzle's Father Koesler mysteries when I read them back in the 80's and 90's. It's too bad this film didn't strike a nerve with the public, as I would have liked to see some of his other mysteries make it to the big screen.  (I feel the same way about Rabbi Small, who unfortunately only got a short-lived TV series that went nowhere...)

The Rosary Murders was not a huge hit at the box office. It only pulled in about $1.5 million in ticket sales. There is no information I could find on it's budget, but with Donald Sutherland an Charles Durning probably getting a decent paycheck, I'm betting it was what would be considered a bomb. As a matter of fact, aside from Sutherland, who is usually pretty good on film, most of the rest of the cast is subpar. Almost as if they were just mailing it in... Which probably goes a long way in explaining both why this movie did not fare well, as well as why there was never another Koesler movie.

My opinion is that the film is OK. But please, don't let the mediocre film deter you from diving into Kienzle's  mysteries. Like Harry Kemelman's Rabbi Small mysteries, you get a really good amateur sleuth who is also a religious leader in the community. You will get a thrill out of the inner working of the religious community as well as a fairly good mystery. In fact, if the movie had just exerted a bit more effort into portraying the interaction of the characters on the religious side, I think this movie might have fared better. (Mind Over Murder, the 3rd book in the series, would have made a good source for film).

Until next time, drive safely.

Quiggy