World War Z — A Review

Hmmm… World War Z? There was a book? Really?

OK, here’s the thing, as I posted a couple of posts back (“Books to Movies…”), I always worry when a book gets turned into a movie. World War Z is the reason why. Here we had a very successful book, #1 on the charts for a while, which wrote about a “zombie” war in the past tense. The book included several stories, in documentary fashion, surrounding separate (but a little bit connected) incidents which took place during the war. It was a fascinating read and after reading it you ended up with an overall, over-arching understanding of the complete war and what happened during it. Great book. I read it because I heard they were releasing a movie of it and I was interested in zombies so I wanted to read it before the movie came out. Today I saw the movie based on the book…. very, very loosely based.

Don’t read the book.

Wait, let me rephrase that. Read the book… It is really a great book and you would be better off reading it even if you’re just not that into zombies.

Forget everything you read in the book.

That’s better. World War Z, the movie, has virtually nothing to do with the book. Sure, it has some common elements. Zombies, for one. It’s good they got that. There’s some type of infection that makes people undead. It is on a global scale. That is about where the likeness ends. This is a different story. Now that that’s been said, I can give you a better review of World War Z as a standalone movie. If you go to see it, forget the book. This isn’t it.

Within ten minutes World War Z gets right into the thick of things by thrusting you, straight out of the gate, into zombie hordes. These aren’t your average, Night of the Living Dead (read that as the original), slow, lumbering zombies. These are the run faster than you, leap on your head, tear off your face, 28 Days Later style zombies. (If you haven’t seen that movie reference, then apparently you don’t like zombies and you have missed a quintessential zombie movie which changed a lot of common movie perceptions about zombies). The story is basic, very basic,… find where it originated and try to find a way to stop it.

World War Z is good in that it takes what the viewer normally sees in zombie movies and applies it on a larger, global scale. That is great. We normally see masses of undead slowly ganging up on small groups of people who are left over after the zombie apocalypse. Look at the hugely popular Walking Dead series. A great show, but it only shows us a small portion of the United States and doesn’t waver much from there. WWZ takes us out of that comfort zone and thrusts us from Philadelphia, to Korea, to Israel, to England. It really helps to open up some of our previous experiences of the zombie apocalypse. The storyline, though somewhat simple, is well written and shows us a few things we haven’t seen before in a zombie movie (the big wall with zombies climbing over each other to get to the top, which they showed in the trailer). And the main character is played by star actor Brad Pitt. Pitt does very well portraying our savior, traipsing across the planet, looking for a way to stop it all.

The effects are great. Very realistic CGI city destruction, zombie hordes, and zombie deaths. There is also not that much gore. No eyes popping out of heads or blood splattering the walls so even though the zombies may be scary and gross, they are not too graphic for the squeamish in the audience. Not like a true horror film in which we see flesh ripping and heads exploding. This movie is not about the blood factor. Explosions are awesome. There are many times zombies leap out at you making you flinch. The facial traits and motions of the zombies are definitely scary enough to make some cringe.

What WWZ doesn’t give us is something completely new… other than ignoring the original book that is. We’ve seen most of this before, here and there, in other movies. There is not much truly new. The special effects makes it feel fresh. Having a big time actor as part of the movie makes it more visible among the throng of movies and possibly gather a much larger than intended audience. And the international settings make us go, “Whoa, it’s everywhere,” and feel a little more globally connected. But, overall, it’s really not much we haven’t seen before.

Don’t get me wrong. I pretty much liked the movie; I like zombie movies and scary movies just as much as the next person. I even like Brad Pitt and his acting. But I kept feeling there was something missing. The story is overly simplistic, and somewhat rushed. The lead role could have been played by almost anyone and had the movie turn out the same (though it certainly wouldn’t get the same box office pull). And if you’ve seen the trailers for the film, you pretty much know most of the movie and have seen a lot of the ‘cool factor’ scenes. I had higher hopes for this movie, but the high expectations were not met.

If you like zombies… Good! You should go see this film. If you like Brad Pitt… Maybe you should see this. If you don’t like zombies, but like Brad Pitt, I don’t think you’d care much for this movie. Overall, this is a good try to bring zombies into the forefront of motion pictures, to maybe give it more credibility as a genre. But really, it feels more like a movie company attempting to cash in on the recent zombie craze. As mentioned before, I liked this film as a zombie flick, but it’s just not ‘great.’

And I really believe if they stayed more true to the original book, it would make a much more fascinating tale (or a series).

I rate this effort 7.5 out of 10.

 

Man Of Steel brings the return of Superman

Superman has been one of the most legendary comic book superheroes ever. Ever since Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster developed him back in 1938, Superman is the superhero most people would want to be. (Yeah, I know all you Batman fans are out there thinking no way. Remember, Batman is cool and all, but has no actual super powers. Superman, on the other hand, has a whole list. But let’s not get into these arguments right now.) The movie Man of Steel now brings Superman back into the spotlight and to new life.

 

Sure, DC Comics tried it a few years ago in the effort of Superman Returns. My opinion? The movie wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t great. I thought it had a decent story, but it felt like a lot was left unexplained. There were so many gaps many audience members were confused over what was going on. I also love Kevin Spacey‘s work, but his role as Lex Luthor was poorly written and such a bad caricature of Gene Hackman‘s, from the original 1978 Superman movie, that it really worked against the film. Plus, the quintessential piece of any Superman movie, Superman himself, was played by Brandon Routh who just didn’t have the chops for a role like that. I felt his acting was very vanilla and bland. Not a good pick. The overall chemistry was all wrong. Of course, I’ve been jaded because, to me, Christopher Reeve is the true Superman.

This time, with Man of Steel the chemistry works. The group of actors chosen are an established group who are mostly recognizable: Amy Adams (Julie and Julia) as Lois Lane, Michael Shannon (Premium Rush) as General Zod, Russell Crowe (Gladiator) as Jor-el, Chris Meloni (Law & Order: SVU) as an army colonel, Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves) as Jonathon Kent, Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix) as Perry White, and relative newcomer Henry Cavill (from The Tudors) as Superman. This group works very well together. They are very believable and their roles are well written. This adds to any movie, but when bringing Superman to life it’s deadly important.

I was very worried about this film. After seeing the trailers, and before seeing it, I wanted so much to like it a lot. I wanted the film to live up to the hype. But I was also worried it was going to crash and burn in failure like the last film. The trailers showed much of the storyline which was part of the original Superman film from 1978: Krypton, SM’s origins, Jor-El, the trial of Zod, etc. It appeared it might just be a rehash of the same story. In a way it is, but they made it better.el, the chemistry works pretty well.

The makers of this film have seemed to realize, in order to make the idea of Superman better, they needed to make him worse. They couldn’t just follow the “goody-goody” model where good and bad are black and white and no one really gets hurt. The writers took their cue from the Dark Knight series. Michael Keaton‘s Batman from the 1980s is much different than the brooding Christian Bale Dark Knight of the 2000s. Many people prefer this ‘darker,’ torn soul, version. The makers of Man of Steel needed to make Superman a little darker. They gave him deeper emotional range and made the movie overall darker than other Supermans you may have seen. It directly relates to some of the darker versions of the newer comic book series. In fact, the typical bright blue, yellow, and red costume is toned down to darker (much cooler) colors of itself and the ‘S’ on the chest is even explained in relation to Krypton (no it doesn’t stand for Superman). The film makers help out this new model by adding Zack Snyder, of 300 and Watchmen fame,  as director. Snyder has made a name for himself by making movies on the darkside. He brings these exact talents to the making of Man of Steel. Indeed, there are several shots in this film which are typical of Snyder filmmaking. The overall judgment is… it works.

Man of Steel takes the origins story of Kal-El (Superman’s Kryptonian name) and plays out the entire story including the attempted coup of Krypton, the trial and banishment, the destruction of Krypton, and the impending battle between good and evil. It all ends up on Earth with epic, city-destroying, battles and the impending doom of the planet. This is great for those of us who want to spend more time in the Krypton world learning more about his birthplace. A lot of this information gets woven into the story from there on out. Snyder revisits Clark Kent‘s child hood, but doesn’t spend time dwelling on a lot of what we already know. I was afraid they would just show you everything again, but they don’t. They seem to understand we know the story, we don’t need to see it again and a few flashbacks suffice.

This film is a constant thrill ride following the rise of one of America’s most iconic superheroes ever. Following from distant worlds to the one we know and the explosive battles which take place between our two antagonists, it’s a movie you can’t look away from because you will miss something small which is a key to who Superman really is. It is almost two and a half hours long, but none of that time is “down time”. Snyder uses every minute to weave a piece of the tale and does so successfully. This is the movie to see if you want to see the original American superhero in all his new found glory. I give Man of steel an 8 out 10.

Books to Movies: Cloud Atlas & Beautiful Creatures

Whenever I hear a new movie is being made based on a book I’ve read I always fear the worst. Books express such a deeper level of feeling and understanding of the characters and stories involved. They can do this because you can basically read the minds of those characters… their thoughts and feelings are laid open for you. You know all the backstories, the past lives.

Translating these thoughts and feelings doesn’t always work in a fully visual medium. Take, for instance, the Twilight series of books. I loved the books. Then came the first movie, Twilight. It was horrible. Let alone the bad acting, so much was hacked from the book in an apparent attempt to make a cheaper movie (it’s almost a certainty they weren’t sure the series would take off like it did and had a limited budget available). Unfortunately, the movie turned out badly.

On the flipside, The Lord of the Rings series and the newest prequel, The Hobbit, had a major budget and turned out wonderfully. The movies were expertly directed by Peter Jackson, the actors had amazing depth, the locations grandiose, and the script was almost directly from the books. The last film went on to win all 11 of it’s Academy Award nominations. It was a major success and successfully translated the books to film. Even then, any true fan of the books will tell you they prefer the written word over the films.

 

 

This leads me to two new films which make the attempt of moving a book to film: Cloud Atlas and Beautiful Creatures. They recently released on DVD/Blu-ray. What is interesting about these is the fact that I had never read the books. It was an interest in the trailers which sparked my interest in the books. I wanted to read the stories before seeing the movies. I liked the books quite a bit. Cloud Atlas quickly became one of my favorites because it successfully wove a thread throughout time of the same star-crossed lovers. Beautiful Creatures was a Twilight style story, thrilling in its own right. How well did they make the transfer to film? Read on.

 
Cloud Atlas, starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, takes us on a journey spanning several generations, but yet following the same two lovers through several reincarnations. The book is wonderfully written with each generation in two acts. The first half of the story of each generation is presented in the first half of the book leading up to a post apocalypse future. the second half of the book then back tracks the second halves of those stories, connecting the dots, and fulfilling the readers’ thirst to know what happens in each portion of the timeline. It’s finished off with a “wrap-up” chapter, further completing the storyline. The movie, instead, takes us “time-jumping” across all the time periods, sometimes in rapid succession. the directors of the Matrix, Andy and Lana Wachowski, present this version. They made a conscious decision to take this tactic. Unfortunately, it seems to fall a little flat when compared to the storytelling of the book. the movie tends to get confusing, even after reading the book, because of all the jumping around between time periods. Many of the characters lose their personalities because the depth isn’t given to them. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is still worth the watch. It’s a valuable story with a wonderful message and very interesting twists. It’s very likable because it’s very different from your average film. It involves all the same actors in every generational story. It’s amazing how they portray different characters in different times and with different makeup treatments to make them fit in with the common folkways of the eras. There is even a very amusing point when Hugo Weaving plays a “Nurse Ratchet” style nursing home attendant. Overall, the movie is good and worth watching, but it still never reaches the pinnacle of the book. I rate it an 8 out of 10.

Where Cloud Atlas becomes somewhat successful with the leap to film, Beautiful Creatures falls sadly short. BC involves a teenage boy who meets the girl of his dreams, literally. He has dreamed of her for months. When she moves into town, he immediately falls for her because there is a connection between the two, their destinies are intertwined. He finds out very quickly that she is a ‘caster’, a witch, for lack of a better term. Her family is full of good and evil members who all have powers. When she reaches her 16th birthday, she will be ‘claimed’ for evil or for good. She apparently has no choice in which way she goes. This is the basis of the story. Read the book to find how it ends, I recommend it. I enjoyed the book almost as much as the Twilight series. It felt a little more raw and unfinished, but still a good story of the supernatural with different twists. As for the film, several liberties are taken with the story. Some of the major characters in the book are now minor characters, and some of the most important scenes are dropped from the movie or become afterthoughts in the director’s story. And other scenes are completely rewritten for the screen and are almost unrecognizable. Many of the ‘caster’ family members are straight up caricatures. It’s disappointing because Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson play two of the leading characters. I want the film to be so much more because they are fine actors. Unfortunately, it’s not a good vehicle for them. The lead character, Ethan, has a voice and mannerisms that are truly annoying. The lead actress, Alice Englert, appears to be very good, but this movie doesn’t let her shine. To make a long story short, this film could be likable. Maybe, if you haven’t read the book, the film will be something better for you. If you’ve read the book, it is most likely disappointing. I give it 6.5 out of 10.

In the end, the movie is never better than the book. It only saves you reading large chunks of material and the time spent on the written word. Books allow you to completely immerse yourself into a world completely different than your own. If you can, always read the book before seeing the film.

Be aware, some films will still turn out great, even from books, but some just can’t make this leap from page to screen successfully. Take, for example, Harry Potter. The films have been wonderful additions to bring the books to life. We will also see what the future has in store for books to movies. Next month World War Z comes to the big screen. I’m currently in the midst of the book, but I can’t imagine the style it is written in transferring well. The trailer appears to focus on one family whereas the book is a mash-up of many stories.

Read the books, see the movies, and you make the judgement.

Star Trek: Into Awesomeness!

Yes, it’s a cheesy title. Yes, I’ve been away for a long time. Yes, I’m back, I think. But the newest exploration into the universe of Star Trek, subtitled Into Darkness, is well worth coming out of nowhere to give it a full review. Star trek: Into Darkness is large enough to title it EPIC!

Star Trek: Into Darkness

After the very able and stellar reboot of the Star Trek series last year by director J.J. Abrams, it was a question of how good could a tired, old genre get? Where could it go from there? Well, the resounding answer is up, up, and UP! The second installment of the newest Star Trek era is an amazing flick of action, jubilation, and even sadness. Yet there is so much I can’t say because it would spoil the film for those who haven’t yet ventured out to take in the new worlds. (Shhhh…. there are secrets!) I’ll try not to spoil any of the twists and turns, but it’s so hard… the movie just makes you want to yell them out! Just let it be known: Star trek: Into Darkness will make you gasp, laugh, grin, and cry all at the same time.

I must also mention the writing team here. Even though I mention Abrams many times, he has not written the screenplays. he only plays in the world they create  The team from the first movie is back, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Together they made a great first film with great characters and scenes. This time they are joined by Damon Lindelof who also wrote for the TV series LOST, and the films Prometheus and the new World War Z. Together this team is phenomenal!

Starting from the very action-packed opening scene, you learn more about the characters of the new Abrams Trek world. There are some old traits from the original Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, the resident Vulcan first officer. (Kirk was originally played by William Shatner in the series and movies and now very aptly played by Chris Pine in the reboot, and Spock is now played by Zachary Quinto, the psycho killer from the TV series Heroes, the original was Leonard Nimoy.) I can’t say enough about Quinto’s performance. He IS Spock for one thing. His portrayal goes so much deeper than one could hope from a Vulcan, but remember, he is half human too. Their reinvention of these characters is more than just an homage to the originals, it’s a wonderful exploration of more than just the surface of them. They bring more of the inner tensions to the surface for everyone to see. There is even the typical comic relief between the two as we’ve seen before, but with new twists (remember, Spock is dating the human Uhura which is just ripe for poking fun at. PS. Uhura is played by Zoe Saldana.). Their inner tensions and feelings become ripped wide open as this movie moves on.

But the film goes far beyond these characters. There is a new threat, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. His portrayal is just plain chilling. I was very impressed by Cumberbatch in the British series Sherlock, which I highly suggest for everyone to see, but here, he turns the somewhat cold and calculating, but still human, Sherlock Holmes into a much darker and deeper antithesis to Kirk and Spock. He plays it  so well, even then, you can’t tell whose side he’s on for there are many enemies to pick and choose from in this universe. I would love to tell you more… even go into a scene by scene description, but it would be a spoiler for many. Just rest assured, you won’t be disappointed.

This film is action packed,  much like the first. You rarely get moment’s rest and there would barely be time to get to the restroom and back before something else major happens. Make sure you “go” before you go to the movie. You don’t want to miss anything. there is more than enough happening on the ground and in space to keep any fan of science fiction thrilled. The fight scenes are spectacular and the space battles amazing. Not too much of a spoiler, Abrams even briefly introduces the Klingons in this installment, and they are somewhat different than the original. (I found this personally interesting when reflecting on the development of Klingons over the years. The original TV series had them as just regular humans with Mongolian style mustaches. LOL! Then the original movie series introduced the menacing ridges on the head and sharp teeth.)

Abrams also gives us some background from the histories of Kirk and Spock. This movie still takes place in the time period before we meet the crew of the Enterprise on its five year mission to explore the universe. That’s what makes some of the writers’ choices so unusual, amazing, and thrilling to the original fans of the series. Remember, the first Abrams’ Star Trek disrupted the timeline of the original so things happen differently in this timeline. There are many instances where you discover how Kirk, Spock and the others develop into the characters they are to become. It’s a fantastic voyage to watch and follow.

The overview? Well, the film comes out nothing short of amazing. It definitely leaves you wanting to walk right into the next theater and find out what happens next. So much happens, yet you are left just wondering what is next… and how can they top this? Indeed, it will be hard for the writers and Abrams to plot the next course. there is so much inter-weaved into Into Darkness to satisfy not only the true Star Trek fan, but the newest members of that growing group put under the spell by the first film of this series. This film is very satisfying. I rate Star Trek: Into Darkness a 9.5 out of 10! And that’s only because a perfect ten would include me in it. 🙂

 

Trick or Treat, a guilty Halloween Pleasure

Every year I have a guilty pleasure when Halloween is concerned. I love to pull out the old 1986 movie Trick or Treat. I’m not talking about the new Trick R Treat, but a completely 80s movie celebrating both Halloween and the heavy metal spirit.

Rock star Sammi Curr dies. High school student and #1 fan Eddie Weinbauer (played by Marc Price, the guy who played ‘Skippy’ on Family Ties) is devastated. Upset, he goes to his local disc jockey friend, Nuke (played by real rock star Gene Simmons from the band KISS and his own show Family Jewels, plus the 80s movie Runaway). Nuke gives him a one-of-a-kind pressing of what would have been Curr’s next album, the only copy of it anywhere. Soon Eddie is rocking to the album, but he soon discovers that when he plays the record backwards Curr actually talks to him from beyond the grave. Eddie quickly realizes that Curr was a Satanist who is trying to live forever through his music. Eddie has to set out to stop him, any way he can .

The story leads through some funny moments, some real thrills and chills, and even Ozzy Osbourne playing an activist reverend! It’s a fun heavy metal ride including some catchy tunes by rockers Fastway (yes, I own the soundtrack on cassette). If you like metal and want a fun little trip to Halloween land, check it out.

Ghostbusters: I Ain’t Afraid of no Ghosts!

“He slimed me!”

And thus the tone is set for 1984’s hugely popular Ghostbusters.

This movie trumped them all, uniting so many stars and soon to be stars in one wild romp through New York City. Let me give you the list first, just so you can see who I mean. Bill Murray (Saturday Night Live, Caddy Shack, Stripes, and many others) reunites with Dan Aykroyd (Saturday Night Live, Blues Brothers, Spies Like Us). throw in some Sigourney Weaver (the Alien series, Gorillas in the Mist, Avatar), Harold Ramis (SCTV, Stripes, and the writer of Animal House), Rick Moranis (SCTV, Spaceballs, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids), Annie Potts (Designing Women, Pretty in Pink, Toy Story), Ernie Hudson (The Crow, Miss Congeniality, and Oz), William Atherton (Real Genius, Die Hard, The Pelican Brief), and even some notoriety for David Margulies as the mayor of New York (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Law & Order, The Sopranos).  And don’t forget director Ivan Reitman of Stripes and Kindergarten Cop fame.

Beyond the great list of comedy actors, the story and the writing is really what made Ghostbusters fly. Indeed, it has spawned so many one quips which so many people now popularly recognize: “Cats and dogs, living together,” “Don’t cross the streams,” “Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back,” “Ectoplasmic residue,” Are you the keymaster?” among others!

The story is this… Part-time scientists discover a large psychokinetic energy is building within New York City. This energy force os raising the dead and creating havoc downtown. These scientists soon form the Ghostbusters, a group of four men running around town and becoming famous for catching and detaing the ghosts. Of course, some people don’t like them and end up releasing all the ghosts in one big cataclysmic event. Soon, the Ghostbusters are fighting an eternal demon god known as Gozer and end up fighting the Stay-Puft marshmallow man, an advertising gimmick brought to life several stories tall.

Altogether the cast, writing, story, and great comedic presentation, along with some spectacular effects of the day, presents us with a wonderful and funny ride. It’s certainly one you want to check out, especially now because a new Ghostbusters III is ready to drop next year!

(Sequels: Ghostbusters II, Ghostbusters III)

Hellraiser: Pinhead is raising Hell

(I’ve fallen a few posts behind because of work, so I’ll be posting a few extra posts in the next few days to catch up)

One of my favorite horror movies of all time has always been Hellraiser. It’s a lower budget British film from 1987, the era of the Jason and Freddy movies. It was written and directed by Clive Barker, one of the most popular horror authors besides Stephen King.

This film spawned one of the most creative serial killers of any horror film: Pinhead (played wonderfully by Doug Bradley who creates a performance and character so commanding you believe he IS Pinhead). But Pinhead is different. He doesn’t kill you unless you “call” him using the puzzle box, an antique toy puzzle cube which, when opened, calls forth demons from hell (hence the title Hell-Raiser). Also different about Pinhead, he doesn’t really kill everyone, he takes them to Hell and creates demons out of some. He’s a more refined killer with discriminating tastes. What does put him in the same category as the other movie serial killers of the time is his look. His name is apt. When he was taken into the puzzle box, his face was lacerated and several nails pounded into his head, points out.

So, now why would anyone want to open the puzzle box if demons come and take you away in more and more ingenious and painful ways: the most common being chains which fly out of nowhere and rip you apart? Well, some people believe they will gain the powers of hell. Of course, it never works out as in this, the first in a series of 9 Hellraiser films.

The story of this one: A woman (Clare Higgins) who is cheating on her husband (played by Andrew Robinson who also achieved some fame in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine series) attempts to hide her lover, the husband’s half-brother (played by Sean Chapman) in an upstairs room of their house. Sounds tough to do, but the lover is also dead because he opened the box and had it ripped away by Pinhead and his legion of Cenobites (demons, or as Pinhead puts it, “Demons to some, Angels to others”). What can give his body back? Blood, of course. Very soon the wife is killing other people to bring her  lover back to her. The thorn in her side? The husband’s daughter who discovers the betrayal and gets in the way (Played by Ashley Laurence who also returns for the next two Hellraiser sequels).

How does it turn out? Well, you will just have to watch it to see, but considering there are many sequels and that the demons are already dead, you know Pinhead and his Cenobites will survive. It’s a great film in the style of slasher killers, but with a definitive twist which will want you wanting more. (The immediate sequels also stack up pretty well, some of the later ones don’t turn out as well.)

(Sequels: Hellbound: Hellraiser II, Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, Hellraiser: Bloodline, Hellraiser: Inferno, Hellraiser: Hellseeker, Hellraiser: Deader, Hellraiser: Hellworld, Hellraiser: Prophecy, Hellraiser: Revelations)

Creepy, Kooky, Mysterious, Spooky… The Addams Family

We’ve looked at The Munsters in our Halloween review and if we’re going to do that we better look at TV’s other Halloween family The Addam’s Family.

And everyone knows the theme, and not just the words, but the double finger snaps also.

The Addams Family is that mysterious family who lives down your block. They’re not monsters (though their relatives may be and if they ever encountered them they would be extremely happy!). The Addams live the creepy life, but the best thing about it is they never even realize how different they are. Indeed, the Addams take ‘dysfunctional family’ to a whole new level and revel in it. This IS normal for them… and we love it. Every episode is a whole new experience in strange. And strange is funny. They make us laugh and want more of their creepiness in our live. I can still recall being a young child and wishing I could stick a light bulb in my mouth and make it light up!

Family patriarch Gomez, played by the laughable and lovable John Astin (well recognized for many appearances in several different TV series), leads the craziness by hitting golf balls off the roof, standing on his head and blowing up his toy trains… “Why else would a grown man play with toy trains?” Morticia is the matriarch, played beautifully by Carolyn Jones (also appearing briefly in many series). Morticia spends her time knitting (mostly things with three arms), growing hemlock plants which are one hundred times more threatening than Venus Fly Traps. And don’t forget Uncle Fester! (The light bulb nut) Jackie Coogan started early in life in Vaudeville even playing Tom Sawyer in the 1930’s movies of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Uncle Fester is perhaps one of the oddest characters, playing with knives, waxing his bald head, and sleeping on a bed of nails. Round the cast off with Lurch, Frankenstein type butler, and Pugsley and Wednesday, the Addams children (and Wednesday’s headless doll) and you have a wonderful fun time in the house of weird. (Oh, and never forget the final member of the family who tends to hold it all together… Thing! A body-less hand who is very handy to have around the house!)

The series lasted two full seasons, but also spawned two major motion pictures in the 1980s starring Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, and introduced young Christina Ricci. The Addams let us know the strange family down the block is strange, yes, but maybe strange isn’t so bad. The whole family will love and laugh at the entire spooky series.

The Munsters! TV for Halloween.

I love movies. But I like TV too. There are many similarities between the two. You could even claim TV is just a series of short movies. So, why not include some quality TV in our look at Halloween. And The Munsters is quality Halloween TV.

This 1964 series played off the classic monster movies. Classic comedy actor Fred Gwynn had just come off a successful run in the series of Car 54 Where Are You? Even by that time, he was no slouch to TV. he had worked in several other series before then and even more since. One of his most famous rules was as the judge in the comedy movie My Cousin Vinnie with Joe Pesci. His ‘long’ face lent itself to play Herman Munster (yes, even the name leads to comedy gold). Herman is the head of the Munster family, a comedic hodge podge of other classic monster stereotypes. His wife, played by Yvonne De Carlo (with her own impressive list of movies and TV behind her), was more in the style of Frankenstein’s bride, but without the crazy hair. Follow these parents up with young Eddie (Butch Patrick), a definite vampire take-off, and the teenage daughter Marilyn, who somehow is born virtually normal, though she loves her family and gets mixed up with all their monster hi-jinx. Added for flavor, Al Lewis, also a Car 54 alumni, portrays the older grandfather, also in the Dracula style. The series also featured several cameo appearances: Mel Blanc (the voice of Bugs Bunny amd many more), Paul Lynde (America’s favorite center square on the original Hollywood Squares and Bewitched), Harvey Korman (Carol Burnett Show, Blazing Saddles), and many more.

Episodes involved many problems of ‘scary’ monsters living in the ‘burbs. It put a new spin on the everyday life with mayhem quickly ensuing. The family was strange to us, even to the point of housing a pet dragon under the stairs, but in reality, we knew the family was more like us than on the surface. It really showed us, beauty is only skin deep and underneath it all, we are all the same.

Return to some of the old episodes and you will see the comedy is timeless, the acting wonderful, and the Munsters are cool. And bring the kids!

Psycho… Yes, Thank you.

Psycho. That’s all you have to say and millions of horror fans wax nostalgic about black and white film, scream-queens, and the Bates Motel. Then, thousands of those same fans will check the walls in their motel rooms for little “eye holes.”

Director Alfred Hitchcock became famous for his thrillers including Rear Window, Vertigo, and North by Northwest. His hands in a film rarely ever failed. Such is the same with his 1960 accomplishment, Psycho. As much as his direction made this film a success, the actors he employed also added the final touches to a thriller masterpiece.

Anthony Perkins, though not in his first role, but definitely his most memorable, plays Norman Bates the owner of a small, out of the way motel. (Since this movie the “Bates Motel” has become synonymous with really crappy, down-and-out motels some see by the roadside.) He lives with his constantly harassing mother on top of the hill in the scary mansion. Soon, Marion shows up, played by scream-queen Janet Leigh (and mother of Jamie Lee Curtis of Halloween fame). She’s running away from her life with $40,000 stolen from her boss. She stops to spend the night at the Bates Motel, where she meets Norman. Thus sets up one of the most memorable scenes ever filmed in a movie… the shower scene. It was so simple, yet so fantastic that even people who have never seen the movie, know that scene.

Knowing Marion is in the shower, because you see the eyeball peeping at her through a hole in the wall, a motherly figure sneaks into the bathroom and stabs her. Hitchcock plays it brilliantly so as you never see the actual stabs on the body, but you do see the downward strokes of the large knife, Marion’s hand grasping the shower curtain and pulling it off its hooks, and the blood running down the drain. Not only do these visuals add to the suspense of the scene, but the music Hitchcock overlays with the scene makes it so much more dramatic. It’s just a simple screeching of violin strings with each downward stroke of the knife making us cringe each time the blade hits home.

A police investigation, sparked by Marion’s sister, soon begins leading the police to the Bates Motel. I don’t want to give away the key points of the movie like who killed Marion and what is Norman’s nagging mother is really like, but the ending is a complete surprise and a must see for any movie fan.

(This film spawned several sequels and even a remake of the original in 1998: Psycho II, Psycho III, Psycho IV:The Beginning (a prequel), Psycho (1998) )