Oct 091980
 
toxic

Years after a boy drowns at a summer camp, the camp is reopened, and young, sexually active camp counselors  begin to die in gruesome ways. Is it the boy, back from the dead or someone else slicing and dicing?

It would be silly for me to try and review Friday the 13th like other films. Saying that the directing is amateurish, the plot non-existent, and the acting up there with the average junior high play should mean something. But for Slashers, no one cares about any of that, particularly for a teen-Slasher with no theme.  What counts is: does this film deliver thrills? Is it frightening and shocking and a little arousing? Obviously not. I remember watching this at the theater when it was initially released, tapping my fingers and waiting for a moment that even reached mildly tense. It never came. What I got was excessive dialog about what’s for dinner and if there is enough paint thinner, plus scenes of looking for a snake and making coffee (or was it tea? So much time is spent following her heating the water and spooning out the sugar that it must have been important).

Give me some real horror: a ghastly, gory moment that will hit me in the gut, and maybe some lewd nudity that will make me sweat. Friday the 13th failed to deliver any of that. It is a mild, placid film. Perhaps there is enough here to perk up a particularly inexperienced twelve-year-old, but for anyone else, there are far more exciting horror films out there. I suppose for 1980, this could be considered bloody, but for those of us with Dawn of the Dead on our shelves, this is like an episode of Happy Days.

The “climax” makes everything that came before it silly (and impossible as there is no suggestion of supernatural strength). The hulk with the hockey mask and machete is the killer in the sequels, not here. The murderer in this first film isn’t shown until the end; the character isn’t even introduced till then, so there is no way to guess who might be responsible before that moment.

If you feel a need to see a psycho-at-a-summer-camp movie, try the far better Sleepaway Camp.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
four reels

A hundred years ago, a ship of lepers sank off the shore of what would become the town of Antonio Bay.  Now a strange fog is rolling into town and citizens are dying.

Part ghost story, part slasher, part curse flick, The Fog is an atmospheric tale that puts multi-dimensional, everyday people into a horrific situation. Director John Carpenter sidesteps all the clichés, presenting something original while sticking close to the standard ghost story. Yes, there is the pretty young girl who is quick to have sex (Jamie Lee Curtis), but unlike in so many horror films, she doesn’t die, she isn’t stupid or bitchy, and she isn’t weak. Finding such a sexually liberated character in modern horror is a good enough reason to watch The Fog.

The cast is as good as I’ve seen in any horror film; in addition to Curtis, there is Adrienne Barbeau, Janet Leigh, John Houseman, Tom Atkins, and Hal Holbrook. Each has their moment as The Fog tells several different stories of people trying to survive and figure out the mystery of what the ghosts want. It’s all tied together by Barbeau’s Stevie Wayne, the town’s late night radio DJ. As the other characters listen to her broadcast, it feels like she is part of each story, even though she interacts with few of the other characters. The Fog was the first in a line of memorable thrillers John Carpenter made in the ’80s. He went on to make Escape from New York  (1981), The Thing (1982), Big Trouble in Little China (1986), Prince of Darkness (1987), and They Live (1988). He has since lost his way, but for that decade he ruled several of the fantasy genres.

Oct 091980
 
two reels

A prostitute (Nancy Allen) and the son of a murder victim team up to find the murderer. The key is in the files of the victim’s psychologist (Michael Caine).

Quick Review: Brian De Palma rips off Psycho in this lackluster thriller.  Angie Dickinson steps into the Janet Leigh role and the rest is by the numbers. There is no tension, no surprises, and Nancy Allen sounds like she is reading her lines while Dennis Franz is doing a cartoon cop’s voice. De Palma does get the sexual scenes right. Angie Dickenson looks great in the shower (the best scene in the film) and Allen is as diverting to the audience as she is to the psychologist when she strips.  But a little erotica is not enough. The body count is low for a Slasher, and two of the killings are dreams, but the razor murders are just enough to put it in the sub-genre.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
toxic

A child, Willy, kills his mother’s abusive boyfriend as his sister, Lacey, watches in a mirror. Years later, Lacey (Suzanna Love), suffering psychological damage from the event, breaks a mirror that releases the spirit of the boyfriend, and the killings begin.

Here, in one film, is everything that went wrong with horror in the ’80s. It’s poorly shot, edited, acted, and written. And, it isn’t frightening. Not even slightly disconcerting.

It steals its beginning from Halloween, but John Carpenter knew how to frame a shot. This looks like it was filmed with the old family 8mm in the neighbor’s spare bedroom. The stabbing might have been funny if played for laughs as it looks so fake. Like most of the killings in the film, extreme close-ups are used so that there doesn’t have to be a person in the shot. Just a knife shoved into some cloth.

For the next hour, the bland people just walk about, doing some farming. It looks like the director went off for lunch and left the cameras rolling. That director is Ulli Lommel, who obviously took this project to prove that Europeans can not only be as incompetent as Americans in making horror films, but can exceed them. There’s no cliché he is unwilling to drag out, no unbelievable effect he won’t haphazardly shoot, to demonstrate his ineptitude.

Knowing that most people will get bored and leave for significant portions, Lommel repeats flashbacks over and over. Hey, you might have been gone the first five or six times. Now that’s being helpful.

Watching, I have to wonder if they had a script, or if they were writing it as they went along. The Adult Willy is a good, but mute man, who strangles a woman for no reason. It doesn’t tie into the story in any way and is thereafter ignored. Lacey’s husband yells at her when he actually thinks she isn’t doing things on purpose, but is insane.  Perhaps Lommel changed the husband’s point of view mid-day, after shooting the yelling scene. Four campers pop up by a lake and two are killed. There’s no reason for them being in the film or dying (the ghost is after his killers—I think, it’s never explained). The remaining campers drive off and aren’t seen again. But then there’s a lot of threads that go nowhere. Early on, Willy and Lacey get a note from their mother who wants to see them. They don’t see her, and she’s never mentioned again. Did the actress who was supposed to play the mother fail to show up?

John Carradine appears briefly as a psychiatrist, but has no connection to the story. It looks like they had him for one afternoon, shot a few bits on the same set, and then spliced pieces throughout the film.

It all climaxes in a silly supernatural fight scenes, with plenty of point-of-view shots because showing the entire scene would be too expensive. One of the more pathetic segments has a priest impaled by a drawer full of knives, except we don’t see that. We see close-ups of his face (which changes very little for a man getting stuck in the back). Then afterward, the camera pulls back to show the blades sticking into an obvious board under his vestments.

But this is a Slasher film and things like a nonsensical story, amateurish lighting, and non-existent color correction aren’t important. So, how does it stand up in what does count for a Slasher? It’s very, very slow, with over thirty-five minutes between killings. There is little blood and the closest you get to skin is a girl in her underwear cutting her hair.

The Boogeyman has nothing to offer anyone. No matter what your tastes, there’s something for you to hate. And there’s no boogyman to give the title meaning.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Apr 201980
 
one reel

The alien Zenon have come to invade Earth in a star destroyer they stole from Star Wars. Luckily the Earth is defended by three female super heroes. Unluckily, they have no weapons or useful strengths and if they transform into their outfits, they will be shot from space. The Zenon’s plan is to set loose a bunch of monsters that happen to be the one in previous Gamera movies. Of course Gamera shows up to defeat the monsters just as he did before. Also hanging around to use up time is a kid who plays the Gamera march on the organ and seems to have a pointless connection to Gamera and an evil Zenon lady who isn’t quite up to the task of dealing with a child.

Daiei was dead, its assets bought by another company, which decided it wanted a Gamera movie, though they didn’t want to pay much. They weren’t even a film company, but figured they could make something back on their investment. The old contracts were still in force, so the filmmakers had no choice. And it turns out a giant monster movie is pretty cheap if you don’t film giant monsters. So they edited together clips from the previous films and shot a minimum amount of new footage, mainly dealing with humans in everyday environments, and they had their film.

The actions of the humans (and space women) have nothing to do with the monsters’s actions. People in the streets don’t act like the country is under attack (I’m guessing many weren’t aware they were in a film). There’s no attempt to make the pieces fit together. The evil lady wants to kill the superhero women because they are somehow on Gamera’s team, except they aren’t in any way. They just watch him on their home video screen. The voice from the space ship keeps threatening the evil girl when Gamera wins due to her failure, except she’s not in charge of the battles with Gamera—she came down to get the three superheroes. Gamera: Super Monster is just some nonsensical new clips stuck between old footage.

Is this worse than the abysmal Gemera vs Zigra? As a movie, yes, much worse, as it barely qualifies as a film. However, if all you want is a way to catch up on the bad Gamera movies, perhaps for your geek trivia contest, without having to watch those films, then this serves a purpose.

Feb 261980
 
2.5 reels

In a cosmic coincidence, the Phantom Zone prison of Ursa (Sarah Douglas), Non (Jack O’Halloran), and General Zod (Terence Stamp) happens to drift by Earth right when Superman (Christopher Reeve) has tossed a nuclear bomb into space. Now freed, the three Kryptonians move to conquer Earth. Meanwhile, Lois (Margot Kidder) has discovered Clark is Superman and he has given up his powers so he can marry her.

Superman II has Christopher Reeve as the perfect Superman. It has Margot Kidder being adorable and quirky. It has the John Williams score. And it adds in General Zod and Ursa, two of the most memorable screen villains.

What it doesn’t have is a good story. It’s hard to figure how much of that is the fault of a poor original script, and how much came in the mess of firing director Richard Donner. Lex Luther shouldn’t be in the film at all, but then Gene Hackman refused to return once Donner was dumped. Perhaps he could have been made relevant by un-shot scenes. A central plot point, the big sacrifice of Superman’s power for love, is a cheat. He’s told it can’t be undone, and then it is undone with ease and almost immediately after it was done (powerless Superman only exists for one horrible, bullying scene).

A lot of little things don’t work. Some of those can be laid at Lester’s feet. He inserted childish jokes in scene after scene. So we get Non failing to use his heat vision and a smarmy honeymoon hotel bellboy.

There is also the infamous kiss and Superman getting revenge on a bully. And I’m not fan of the civic duty over love theme.

Still, I can’t dislike this film. Reeve, Kidder, Douglas, and Stamp are too memorable.


Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

There is no Richard Donner Cut. Donner did not shoot enough film to create a finished product. He shot Superman and somewhere around half of Superman II when he was fired by the Salkinds. They hired Richard Lester, who was more amiable to their desire for a light, children’s film, the full flower of which can be seen in the disaster that was Superman III. Lester didn’t just finish the film, but reshot some of the scenes Donner had finished as well as oversaw changes to the story.

The so called Richard Donner Cut returns a majority of the footage that Lester had replaced, and splices in some test footage and even a bit from the first film to try to approach what Donner would have done. There’s still a good deal of material shot by Lester and some of what Donner would have done was never shot in any form, so remains missing.

The most notable changes from the theatrical cut are:

  • The re-insertion of Marlon Brando (Brando had also had problems with the Salkinds, leading to the shots being replaced by ones of Susannah York as Superman’s mother),
  • The elimination of the Eiffel Tower terrorists (the evil trio are released from the Phantom Zone by the nuke launched by Lex Luthor at the end of the first movie)
  • Lois leaping out the window of the Daily Planet to prove Clark is Superman
  • Different scenes at Niagara Falls
  • No amnesia kiss. Instead the time-reversal ending from the first film is used. The original plan had been to use the reversal in the second film, but problems with the production of the first film caused them to tack it on to it when the original ending fell apart.

The “Richard Donner” cut has the same major flaws as the theatrical version. It still has the cheat of Superman giving up his powers and getting them right back. It still has Lex feeling like an unnecessary add-on. It also has the same positives: Reeve, Kidder, Douglas, Stamp. and the score. But if I am being picky, this is the better version, if for no other reason than how adorable Lois looks wearing only Superman’s T-shirt (instead of a long white nightgown). The loss of some juvenile humor is also a plus, as are the “new” relationship scenes between Lois and Clark. Only two changes are not an improvement. One is the time-reversal. It was terrible in Superman and it is terrible here. However, so was the amnesia kiss, so I’ll call it a draw. The other is Jor-El’s speech by Brando when Superman is asking about having a love life. The father is a self-righteous ass, and considering he was married and had a child, it’s hard to see it as natural to the character.

The new cut also introduces inconsistencies, but that’s to be expected with what amounts to a rough cut.

The other films in the series are Superman, Superman IIISuperman IV: The Quest For Peace, and semi-sequel Superman Returns. The character was rebooted by Zack Snyder for Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Dec 051979
 
3,5 reels

After a boat shows up in New York harbor with only a zombie on board, the daughter of the ship’s owner and a reporter head to Matul Island to discover what happened.  What they find is a doctor trying to cure a plague of zombism.

Zombi 2‘s name has created a great deal of confusion, partly because it isn’t a sequel to anything.  When Dario Argento re-cut Romero’s Dawn of the Dead for Italian audiences (focusing on the gore), he re-titled it Zombi.  That film was a hit, so Director Lucio Fulci altered his zombie film to conform with Argento’s and titled it Zombi 2 as a marketing gimmick.  It doesn’t fit in Romero’s Dead world, (the zombies are much slower, rarely looking up or moving their arms), but it is close.  If one were to slide it in, it wouldn’t be a sequel, but a prequel, with its first scenes occurring before those of Night of the Living Dead.  Since the title is of little use outside Italy, it is called Zombie in many countries (including the U.S.) but goes by at least four other titles (Island of the Flesh-Eaters, Island of the Living Dead, The Dead Are Among Us, Zombie Flesh-Eaters).

By any name, this is a flawed triumph.  The flaws are everywhere, and include acting that goes from fair to non-existent, poor dubbing (all versions are dubbed as half the actors spoke English and half Italian), plot points that go nowhere, make-up that looks like flour and red paint, perplexingly stupid characters (sometimes they get rid of dead bodies and sometimes they keep them nearby), bodies that still have flesh after 400 years, and an annoying electronic score.

But the good outweigh the bad.  Several shots, particularly the boat sailing into the harbor, a 360 degree turn about a shuffling zombie, and the ending (which I won’t give away), are artistic marvels.  But zombie films rise or fall on their ability to tickle the viewer’s primitive feelings, to bring forth an instinctive response, and here Zombi 2 scores.  The gore is extreme, and while much of it is nothing new, a few moments will shock the most jaded moviegoer (one involves an eye—I’ll say no more).  Zombi 2 also provides the bizarre.  In a mesmerizing series of scenes, Fulci delivers first a topless scuba diver (the underwater photography is clear and crisp), then a submerged battle between the diver and a zombie, and finally a contest between the undead and a shark.  That’s something no one should miss.
Fulci went on to make the zombie/hell gate feature, The Beyond.

Back to Zombies

Oct 101979
 
3,5 reels

Society is falling apart, with a majority of youths either joining violent gangs or roaming the countryside as part of new age cults.  Those who are older are callous, accepting the disintegration of the cities with a shrug.  In this setting, retired rocket scientist  Bernard Quatermass (John Mills) comes to London in search of his granddaughter.  Rescued from thugs by astronomer Joe Kapp (Simon MacCorkindale), he returns to Kapp’s home/observatory in the country in time to see a mass of teens and twenty-year-olds killed in an ancient stone circle by an energy beam.  With a bit of his old drive forced upon him, Quatermass sets out to discover what is killing the young, and determine how to stop it.

The last and strangest of the four Quatermass films, The Quatermass Conclusion is a fitting sendoff for the brilliant professor.  It is darker and sadder than the others, filled with death and despair, but this also makes it more emotional and more affecting.  For all the fantastical situations, it feels real.

The brash, powerful, force-of-nature Quatermass from the earlier films is gone.  Age has had an effect, and he is now, as he admitts, an old man who is no longer as sharp as he once was.  He doesn’t care about grand adventures or great discoveries any more.  He isn’t a broken man, but if he had his preference, he would now be a quiet one.  But that isn’t allowed to him.  His sixteen-year-old granddaughter has run off, and all he wants to do is find her.  That search leads him not only to an unknown menace, but to a possible explanation to her behavior, and the violence of youth.  Mills is a wonderful Quartermass.  It is easy to see the continuation from Andrew Keir’s version in the previous film.  This is the man you would get if you started with Keir’s, and then added twenty years and many failures.

The setting is as good as the lead.  Few films have so powerfully presented a world in freefall.  Bodies lay in the streets, money is worthless, and the government has little power.  Corrupt pay-cops patrol only what is deemed financially worthwhile, and street vendors sell books that are “guaranteed to burn well.”  Quatermass is attacked as soon as he steps onto the streets, an event that interests the TV station’s employees only to the extent that the bruises may look bad on camera.  There is no hope, which is hammered home by the new age Planet People, who are disgusted by scientists and insist that everyone “stop trying to know things.”  It is occasionally frustrating that the few people trying to help underestimate the dangers in this apocalyptic world.  I wouldn’t go anywhere without a loaded submachinegun  and maybe a few explosives, but on multiple occasions, Quatermass tries to reason with religious fanatics while unarmed.  I think he would have learned after the first attempt.

While the first three Quatermass stories were broadcast on the BBC as multipart serials, before being re-shot for the big screen by Hammer Pictures, things worked differently for The Quatermass Conclusion.  The four part, 240 minute series, titled simply Quatermass, was filmed simultaneously with the feature.  But the movie is not just a chopped-up version of the TV show, nor is the show a padded version of the film.  Instead, Nigel Kneale wrote two different, but similar, scripts, molding the development of tension and the pacing for each medium.  In some cases, different scenes were shot for the feature.  The whole thing was made for the cinema (although I’ve only been able to find “full screen” presentations), and it had a relatively large budget.  When effects scenes would have cost too much, we aren’t given shoddy versions.  Instead, we’re shown what the characters see, and as they cleverly turn away from things that might kill them, the biggest events happen off screen.  We do see Wembly Stadium, covered in the ash of seventy-thousand burnt bodies, and that’s all the effects that are needed.

The development of the project was complicated, and sometimes it shows in the finished picture.  Kneale was commissioned to write the fourth entry in the Quatermass sage in 1971, but due to financial considerations, it wasn’t developed.  When Thames picked it up almost eight years later, with the understanding that there would be two versions, Kneale stuck with the basic ideas he’d already written.  So, the film was dated even before it came out.  The new age Planet People are flower children, who would have been prevalent in the early ’70s, but look pretty odd a decade later.  Viewed from an additional twenty-five years, they are hard to watch without an occasional snicker.

Everything about The Quatermass Conclusion is seeped in the cultural upheavals of the late ’60s and 70s.  It is the thoughts of an older man who does not understand teenagers.  Throughout the movie, it is stated that youths are the target, but this almost never means children.  Instead, these “youths” are in their twenties and late teens.  They are rebelling against society, which was really happening at the time, and it is clear that Kneale didn’t understand why.  Anyone under ’30 is given little respect and all their actions are misguided and controlled by strange forces.  He wants to think of them, deep down, as children from some mythical golden age.  But I shouldn’t be to hard on Kneale.  His view of anyone older isn’t much better.  The middle-aged are cruel, stupid, and uncaring.  And the old are dim, slow, and obsolete.  A prevailing theme throughout the picture is that humans suck.

Oddly, his old fashioned view of “youth” doesn’t harm the film.  After all, it is the story of an old man.  And, unlike the earlier movies, the plot isn’t that important.  It is the characters that pull you in.  While in the earlier incarnations, Quatermass and his crew solved mysteries, here they suffer.

As this is the end of the journey, this isn’t the best place to start if you are uninitiated into the Quatermass fan club.  But you don’t have to start at the beginning.  Quatermass and the Pit and The Quatermass Conclusion would make an excellent double feature and give you everything you need to understand the character.

The other films in the series are: 1955’s The Quatermass Xperiment (The Creeping Unknown in the U.S.), 1957’s Quatermass 2 (Enemy from Space in the U.S.), and 1967’s Quatermass and the Pit (Five Million Years to Earth in the U.S.).

 Aliens, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 091979
 
four reels

Yet another film of the stage play, Count Dracula (Frank Langella) moves to England for new hunting grounds and to seduce Lucy Seward (Kate Nelligan).  However, vampire hunter Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier) and Jonathan Harker (Trevor Eve) fight to keep Lucy in polite society and to destroy the king of the vampires.

The problem with all Dracula movies is that the basic story isn’t very good. It’s a xenophobic tale that assumes that middle class English society is the only correct society and foreigners are not to be trusted. Nor are women who are weak by their nature. Nor the lower classes who are inherently inferior. Nor, of course, any of our “base” urges as they are not sanctified by The Church. This is the world of the novel Dracula, a puritanical world, and it explains why Harker and Company are so dull and proper.  By the nature of the story, the good guys are bland, and we are supposed to like them. But I don’t like them. I like Dracula, even when he oozes evil (Lugosi). In this version, Dracula has been made seductive, so I find myself hoping he will destroy drab society (represented by Harker) and the institutions that support it (Van Helsing). Unfortunately, the Dracula story wasn’t written for anyone to cheer for the “villain.”  Ah well.

Within the non-functional framework, this is a pretty good adaptation. Yes, all the male “heroes” are either colorless or insufferable and the pacing is off, but that’s true of every version. Laurence Olivier puts in a particularly annoying performance, but then who could play the voice of righteousness in an engaging way?  It shines, as all watchable versions do, on its Dracula. Frank Langella, even with his ’70s hair, is an extremely good-looking man with a fluid voice and piercing eyes.  This Dracula seduces both his victims and the audience.  Kate Nelligan, as a misnamed Lucy, puts in a capable performance as the seduced. As long as they are on screen, this is sensual and moving. That makes this a love story, and a very good one.  Too bad Dracula isn’t a love story.

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Oct 091979
 
one reel

On Christmas Eve, The Tasmanian Devil (voice: Mel Blanc) is accidentally dropped from an airplane and falls into Santa Claus’s suit, which is on a line to dry.  Bounced into Santa’s sleigh, “Taz” shows up at Bugs Bunny’s (voice: Mel Blanc) house, but, as always, the ferocious devil can’t get the best of Bugs.  7 min.

The 1950s Warner Bros Looney Tunes cartoons were the high end of the art of animation.  Cutting edge works such as One Froggy Evening, Rabbit of Seville, Duck Amuck, and What’s Opera Doc are as a funny as anything put on celluloid, and smart entertainment.  But the light had dimmed by the ’60s.  By 1979, there was nothing left.

Even with Friz Freleng—who worked on Bugs Bunny cartoons during the glory days—at the helm, the magic is gone.  The animation is cheaply done, far below the standards of the earlier WB work and in no way standing out from the average Saturday morning fare.  The script is drab, without a joke even attempted till the halfway point.  When the gags finally start, it just gets sadder.  It’s as if Freleng and company forgot what made Bugs funny.

The great Looney Tunes cartoons may not have Christmas themes, but any one of the ’50s classics would bring far more merriment to your holiday than this limp effort.

The Fright Before Christmas is available on the Bugs Bunny’s Looney Christmas Tales tape, along with Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol, and Freeze Frame.

Oct 051979
 
one reel

Essex (Paul Newman) and his pregnant lover travel across the frozen wastes to an ancient city where he hopes to find work. Instead, she is murdered, along with Essex’s brother. Essex seeks out the murderers, and tries to determine how the killings tie into the game Quintet, which the inhabitants of the ice-covered city play fanatically.

Listen as I blow your mind:

Whiteness. Bleakness. The human soul is but a minute ice crystal in the vastness of the snowscape which is the never ending void of existence. It is layered within the slush of the psyche of the cold reality of humanity.

Is it blown?  If so, you’re going to love Quintet, a movie which asks the question, is there a limit to how pompous a film can be?  Director and “auteur” Robert Altman, who has never met a long period of silence he didn’t like, is completely at home with this soul withering excursion into pretension.

It’s not surprising that a movie this overblown is also obscure.  For nine-tenths of the film, it’s impossible to figure out what is going on.  It doesn’t help that the picture is indistinct, with a blurry frame surrounding the picture.  Penthouse photo shoots use less Vaseline on the camera lens. The film introduces us to an ice-encrusted, dying city of the future, with no comment on how it works, or giving any real idea of what is happening in it. Dogs outnumber people, and eat the dead who are left where they fall.  Everyone plays a game, but we’re given no idea what the rules are. Some people have jobs, but most don’t, and no explanation is given as to how anyone survives.  People wander into rooms, make vague statements about the “sixth man” or the “sixth side,” and then off they go.  No, that sentence implies something happens quickly.  Before anyone goes off anywhere, there are five or six long pauses and a few close-ups accompanied by dramatic music.  It’s as if Altman watched Zardoz and said, “That flying head and those immortals in tuxes make far too much sense.  I can make a film that will be completely impenetrable to everyone.”  It’s hard to imagine what other motivation he had for making the film.

And after all the pseudo-intellectual rhetoric and unexplained antics, it all turns into the simplest story imaginable.  In the last five minutes, I realized that this is really a ten minute short, surrounded by meaningless babbling.

Quintet is a movie with a lot of ice, and that’s about it.

Oct 031979
 
two reels

Scrooge (a.k.a. Yosemite Sam) is up to his normal skin flint ways.  His treatment of Bob Cratchit (Porky Pig) is this the last straw for Bugs Bunny, who declares, “This means war!”  Grabbing a sheet, Bugs pretends to be a ghost to scare Scrooge into some Christmas spirit.  8 min.

The Looney Tunes, do Dickens, and it’s…alright.  The jokes are adequate, the animation is acceptable, and the characterizations aren’t bad.  Yup, The Looney Tunes, once the top rung of animation, manage only mediocre farce.  It’s eight minutes, so it doesn’t wear out its welcome.  I guess that’s some kind of recommendation.

What sticks in my mind is how tepid everyone (everytoon?) is.  Bugs’ wildest act is smooching Sam.  His most sinister plot is telling Sam he’s going to Hell.  Is this the Bunny who forced an opera singer to bring a building down upon himself?  The old Bugs would have shown up in drag as the Ghost of Christmas Past, and coaxed Sam to step out the window, smiling as he plummeted to the ground below.  Sam’s pretty wimpy too.  One threat, and he’s willing to give in.  They’ve become bland, PC versions of themselves, sanitized to protect the children.  And far worse, they aren’t as funny.

Many of the old characters show up to fill out the scenes, but only Sam, Porky, and Bugs (playing himself with a touch of Scrooge’s nephew) get any screen time.  Tweety is Tiny Tim, Sylvester is…Sylvester, Scrooge’s cat, and Elmer Fudd, Pepe Le Pew, and Foghorn Leghorn are carolers.

If you feel compelled to pick this up, it is available on the Bugs Bunny’s Looney Christmas Tales VHS (no DVD yet), packaged with two other limp efforts, The Fright Before Christmas, and Freeze Frame.