CMT - Sleepy Hollow (1999)

I recently decided to use rottentomatoes.com, as a more regular resource for this blog. The general consensus from critics and the audience scores, are helpful tools when deciding on a film to suggest. "Sleepy Hollow", like many of the movies I've commented on, is a show that was already familiar to me. Looking at the information, that the website provides for this picture, you'll note that the genres listed are: Horror, Romance, Mystery and Suspense.

The list from Netflix is somewhat different. On the introductory page, the Horror and Mystery classifications are there, but Romance is omitted. It also adds Science Fiction, Fantasy and 'Supernatural Horror', but Suspense is notably absent. So where exactly is this film genre-wise and why would there be a disagreement?

Classic Movie Trailers - "Sleepy Hollow" (1999)

The problems actually start with the classification system itself. If you consult Wikipedia regarding film genres, you'll see that academics haven't settled on a sure way, to divide and categorize cinema; several methods are actively used. Among the considerations are the actual size of the film, be it 8 or 16 millimeter, the target audience, the amount of money put into the production and other factors. For the sake of simplicity, let's focus on works of fiction and their different narrative elements.

Obviously, there is Drama to consider. The other words, we commonly associate with films are: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Tragedy, Western, Crime, and every word attached to "Sleepy Hollow" as it stands, save for "Supernatural". Now here is where it gets really complicated. You see, these genres are also divided into different types.

If we decide to group movies based on their setting, we can talk about War movies and Space movies and Westerns. We could also look to include Victorian Era films and those that take place during Medieval times. If theme is more significant, we can look at Crime, Science Fiction, Fantasy and Adventure, even Supernatural arguably fits. Let's say for the sake of argument, that we'll settle on mood; that brings Comedy, Tragedy, Horror and Drama upfront, with Romance as either a subgenre, or a genre in itself.

I don't know about you, but I'm lost. Exacerbating the difficulty, is the fact that these genres are not mutually exclusive. Actually, it is much more helpful to look at setting along with mood and theme. I mean, let's face it; yes a movie can be a Western, but is it a Crime Western, a Comedy Western, or an Action film with Tragedy? All of those things can be true.

So let's bring it back down to "Sleepy Hollow" specifically. We may not be able to set up a solid category to place it in, but maybe we'll agree on what the ingredients are. Both of our sources claim that this is a horror movie and I think that's hard to dispute. There is some mystery regarding the Headless Horseman, his origins and his motivations, so that's an element as well.

Netflix doesn't recognize the budding romance, but I think that was prevalent. Christina Ricci's character and her relationship, with Depp's Ichabod Crane, is a major theme that starts early and ends late. If we take a look at the fantasy elements, magic is used to affect the supernatural. Without both of those devices, you need a different resolution and by using something else, you get a different movie.

Science fiction is the one thing I can't see. Granted, Crane's devices are queer-looking, but there isn't anything advanced, or futuristic about them. The man himself, is much closer to 'Sherlock Holmes' than 'Dr. Who'. He has an empirical, scientific way of looking at the world, which doesn't include time travel and teleportation.

There is suspense though, and if we fail to recognize that, I think we miss something significant. For my money, there's at least three different kinds of horror. You have your spooky, supernatural ghost stories, the gore fests and the thriller. In the latter example, the fear comes from the speed of the pursuer.

This movie isn't about blood at all. Heads definitely roll, but they do so quickly and cleanly. There is a violent death involving Crane's romantic adversary, but even that is shot from afar. "Sleepy Hollow" doesn't try to gross you out; the tone of the film is lighter and that brings about a major point.

If this was a serious film, Depp wouldn't have feinted onscreen. He wouldn't have cringed behind his blankets, like a kid with goosebumps. The performance he gave was theatrical, exaggerated and amusing. If you wondered why Comedy wasn't listed at the beginning, you're absolutely right to question it.

This is a comedy, ladies and gentlemen; this is a comic book. This is "Tales From The Crypt" with a nod, a wink and a pinch on the cheek. The main villain laid out the entire plot at the end, and reminded me of "Scooby-Doo Mysteries". I am utterly clueless, about how both websites missed the humor. It just goes to show you though, it's definitely not easy.

Trailer Here.

-----------------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

Watch "Sleepy Hollow" on Netflix!

CMT - Apocalypse Now

I suspect that voice overs aren't as common as they used to be. In film noir, great emphasis was placed on them, but they haven't been used that frequently since. If we take a closer look at the benefits they provide, it becomes clear that they have a lot of applications. Unfortunately, if we want to know why "Apocalypse Now" is so beloved, they can't provide us with a definitive answer.

Classic Movie Trailers - Apocalypse Now (1979)

Often, the motto for movies is "show, don't tell" and as far as I'm concerned, that's good policy. Films are at their best when they show some sort of action taking place. It's much more common to see a plot point unfold, than it is to hear about it through character dialogue. This is because actually seeing an incident occur, is much more immediate and easier to grasp, than a description of what happened after the fact.

Spoken words are very important in movies, but film is a visual medium and as such, it has certain strengths and weaknesses. For example, movies are great at showing a short period of time. They are good for displaying the beauty of sets, locations and artful lighting. They can also travel thousands of miles in less than a second, with a single cut.

If you have a story that continues to go back and forth in time, film is going to struggle with it. Flashbacks can be confusing, and they are especially so when they are used frequently. I also wouldn't suggest, showing more than two different time periods in one film. Any more than that and you risk losing your audience.

Additionally, films aren't so good at conveying a character's history. They have difficulty explaining an exact frame of mind, specific thoughts and anything left unsaid. Letters are also tough to cover, even when they're typed legibly. Showing them onscreen is awkward and you can never be sure that the audience is done reading, before you cut away.

"Apocalypse Now" uses voice overs to shore up these weaknesses, and it does so better than any movie I've ever seen. With Martin Sheen's gruff voice as a constant source of information, we're able to get the details that we would otherwise miss. We can read all the letters and documents and briefs, and we become privy to all the personal history and important past events, that would otherwise bog the film down. Also, we gain an insight into Willard's mind and by understanding him, we can appreciate Kurtz as well..

Having said all of that, I don't think this is a great movie, but I will acknowledge that it is a good one. "Apocalypse Now" has captivating and unique characters, such as the ones played by Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall. It communicates the horrors of war and the adverse effects it has, on the soldiers that wage it. It also presents a very entertaining story, that pulls you along to the end.

Unfortunately, that ending was anti-climatic. Willard explained why the mission was completed so easily, but he didn't say why he was allowed to escape. We can speculate about it and come to some satisfying conclusions, but I thought that was a poor solution, regardless of the reason. People would have you believe that this is one of the greatest movies of all time; if it's so perfect in every way, how is it that I have found fault with it?

Well, I think that "Apocalypse Now" is a movie, that allows you to interpret it in your own way. It can be pro war or anti-war. It might focus on the courage of the Vietnamese, or it may emphasize the will of the American soldier. What you believe going in, is exactly what you will take out of it.

I also think that over the years, harsher critics of this film have kept silent, or quieted down voluntarily. At rottentomatoes.com, "Apocalypse Now" has a 99% critic approval rating and the audience score isn't very far behind. As astounding as that is, it isn't so surprising after you think about it for a while. When the initial reaction to a movie is, and then continues to be so positive, over such a long time, it's hard to stem that tide and defend your position.

We each take different things away from entertainment. Though we may agree that a film is good or bad overall, often it will be for different reasons. What's even more interesting to me, is how the conclusions of others affect our own opinions. If we like something, we might not think it's so great after critics have trashed it. If we dislike something, we might become insecure about our views and their merit, if the film receives universal acclaim.

Trailer Here.

----------------------------

@ChannelSeals

See "Apocalypse Now" on Netflix!

CMT - Announcement #2 - Halloween Highlights

When I was a kid, I couldn't watch Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video.

I was too scared. That zombie face was the most terrifying thing I had seen by that point and I simply wouldn't watch the werewolf transformation. Instead, I preferred to stare at the back of the couch. Even so, Halloween was my second most favorite holiday of the year; it came directly after Christmas in my heart, but that's only because those gifts are hard to beat.

The ability to dress up and pretend to be someone, or something else entirely appealed to me. No kid with an active imagination, could go without putting on a costume. It was almost like the candy came second to the fun. It was scary, sure, but it was thrilling at the same time.

So, with childlike enthusiasm, let me present "Halloween Highlights" running in this blog through October. Beginning on 10/5 and continuing on Mondays, up to and including 10/26, I will be providing commentaries on some of the most celebrated horror films of all time. Then, on Saturday October 31st, I will post a bonus essay on "The Monster Squad". 

I ask only, that you supplement your candy with popcorn, so you don't get sick.

The images here, represent the movies we'll be looking at. For the exact order and dates of each essay, be sure to check my Twitter page. I normally post the announcement on Tuesdays, sometime before late evening (It's too spooky).

So feel free to join me, in this month-long celebration of ghouls and ghosts and goblins. You're always welcome, be you supernatural creature or seafaring pirate. Just remember, that the nutritious value of candy apples negates all of the sugar, and as long as you have a tooth in your mouth you're free to rot them away.

It's so sweet.

@ChannelSeals

CMT - Masters of the Universe

Sometimes, when the years pass after a film's debut, you wonder why there wasn't a sequel. With "Masters of the Universe" however, the answer to that is clear, as it was a critical and commercial disaster. Having said that, I remembered it somewhat fondly and after seeing it again, I'll admit I wanted a bit more. The question for me then quickly became, where did it go wrong?

Classic Movie Trailers - Masters of the Universe (1987)

Perhaps the problems start, with the seeming lack of effort put into the story. This is a "paint by the numbers" movie, with some set up and some conflict, but little to no surprises before the end. I like to think of it as being a "popcorn flick"; it's simple enough that you can enjoy it without thinking very much. For me, that kind of entertainment is nice sometimes, but if you aren't looking for that at the start, you might just leave it bored.

It is interesting to note however, that there is some disparity between the critics and the general audience. Over at rottentomatoes.com, the movie has a 17% approval rating with reviewers. When you compare that to the 41% that it scored with moviegoers, that's quite a difference. Admittedly though, if over half of the customers leave unhappy, you probably don't have a very good product.

It's possible, that they went into production doomed from the start. What is good and what is bad in entertainment is always subjective, but you have to also consider what is expected. "Return of the Jedi" debuted in 1983. "Back to Future" was out in '85 and "Masters" arrived two years later. I suppose by that time, people wanted more than what it could give.

Episode VI had a budget of about forty-three million, according to Wikipedia. The same source claims that "Masters" had about half of that. If we consider, that most of the scenes in the latter film are on location, it's easy to see why they might have went in that direction. Designing and producing otherworldly sets is expensive, so if the Eternians travel to Earth, they save the producers a lot of money.

That would also mean, that He-Man needs to run around Chicago in his cape and underpants; so I can sort-of see why people didn't dig it. To be honest though, I don't think Courteney Cox and her boyfriend did much to help. I couldn't have cared less about them and their problems and it's hard to imagine who they would have served. That is to say, that I think they had the attendees pegged wrong.

Let's put this in perspective here; "He-Man and The Masters of the Universe" was a cartoon. It was created to promote a toy line and it debuted with it, in 1983. Four years later, we got this movie and it looks like it was going for a much older audience. The romance in "Star Wars" was light and sparse by comparison."Masters", on the other hand, is heavy on the icky-kissy-cootie stuff and the kind of drama that kids don't want to see.

There's no "Johnny B. Goode" scene and no fun along those lines, so I'm sure the parents were also not thrilled with it. I am of course, speculating here as always, but maybe there was more action and fantasy in the original script. It's possible that Dolph Lundgren signed on, with a much better blueprint than what they wound up using. Investment capital often dries up for a lot of different projects and film is no exception.

Watching the movie now, I think it was a gamble. They did the best they could at the time, hoping that they could make more with less. If they were lucky, they could have been a hit with teens and the young adults in the crowd. We would have seen the Eternia that they couldn't show initially, if they made enough money to justify a return.

Reportedly however, they didn't even break even. Upon reflection, I think they should have seen that coming. Money is a big problem and if Frank Langella's Skeletor can't conjure up enough, no other movie magic is going to make up the difference. When people want Narnia or Middle-Earth, you can't give them "Shakespeare in the Park" and expect it to go over well.

Trailer Here.

-------------------------

@ChannelSeals

See"Masters Of The Universe" on Netflix!

CMT - The Naked Gun (1988)

As fun as it is to watch "The Naked Gun", there must have been a much better experience behind the scenes. This kind of film lives on the amount of laughs it can deliver, so to that end, they had to create a lot of jokes. It's probably a safe bet, to say they went beyond what was already written and that plenty of meetings were held, by a dry erase board. All we are left with is the finished product, but the real laughs are in the moments we'll never get to see.

Classic Movie Trailers - The Naked Gun: From The Files of Police Squad (1988)

What if you could spend a few weeks out on the road, with your favorite band? That would mean backstage access, a nearby hotel room and a chair to sit in, for every jam and recording session. If that sounds like fun to you I'm sure that it would be, but you might also find it to be incredibly frustrating. You see, in that particular scenario, you're getting to experience the music that will never reach the outside world.

Let's say that one day, in the very early morning, the lead guitarist gets up and plucks away at his strings. This could be something he does often, to loosen up for a later event, but during this time he could stumble upon a masterpiece. While listening for a few seconds, you hear the dollar signs between the notes, but after a minute or so he moves on, to a completely different melody. Maybe if you leap out of bed and burst into the room, you'll be able to get him to preserve something, that would have been forgotten and lost.

Even if you are that fortunate, the chances are against that work ever seeing the light of day. Maybe it doesn't fit into the album that they're working on. Maybe the melody is right, but they just can't find the words. Maybe the song is deemed better for a future project, but that project is never released.

Like music, comedy is contextual. You could come up with the funniest moment in film history, but if it doesn't fit the story it'll be cut. There might be something left to salvage on the editing room floor, but you could lose all of the effectiveness, when you try to use it elsewhere. I've yet to see a joke book make the best seller's list and that's possibly because they lack the context, that made the jokes funny to begin with.

Sometimes, you just have to be there. When that scene wasn't working and the director called for a meeting, you had to be the one to slip into the room, with the writers and the cast. When Leslie Nielsen woke up from his nap between shoots, you needed to be that fly on the wall, to see what escaped his golden pen. I'm willing to bet, that the funniest moments during production were at supper time, when the cameras were off.

Like music, comedy is art without boundaries. It isn't chained down by logic or reason, like many other genres. While brainstorming and trying to find the most hilarious thing possible, an idea can turn into a riot, if it's bounced off someone that can think outside the box. I can't imagine a more creative environment than that and I doubt there's a group of people, that we should envy more.

After all, they can only convey so much. We'll be able to enjoy some of the work, but the rest will be lost to time. The only thing we can do now, is preserve as much as we can and I think the best way to do that, is to find a local record store. Obviously today that's a much harder task, but if you go to the flea markets, the swap meets and the garage sales, you can get your hands on vinyl.

You'll want to sift through as many boxes as you can. In between the releases from Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones and the like, you're going to find a few album covers with Richard Pryor on them. If you keep looking, you'll see names like Eddie Murphy, Bobcat Goldthwait, George Carlin, Sam Kinison and Redd Foxx. Those are priceless pieces of material, that you should buy and store immediately.

Be careful not to settle for streaming these performances, or waiting for them to appear on cable TV. If everyone did that, imagine what we'd lose. Servers go down all the time and companies are only concerned about what products will make them the most. We're already losing millions of pieces of art every day; if some of them are recorded, we should hoard them like no tomorrow.

Trailer Here.

-------------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

See "The Naked Gun" on Netflix!