30th Hall of Fame

I was in the middle of my review. I'll finish it up, and I may as well post it here anyway. I'd never seen Candyman before and I thought it was quite good.

__________________

I'll try to write my review of Valley of the Dolls over the next couple days. Overall, I enjoyed it quite a bit more than I expected I would.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Every since I was a very small boy, I've had an overactive imagination. I'd look at my bedroom window at night, and expect some kind of ghoul to appear there - almost anticipating it as if my imagination were enough to tempt something supernatural to materialize. That inner fear turned out to be an unexpected benefit when it came to scary movies - the more unnerving the better and more fondly remembered. Is this masochism? Mathias Clasen and others have studied this strange counterintuitive compulsion some of us have regarding these films - and I'm definitely a fan of freaking myself out. So, how well does a film like Candyman do in comparison to the broad spectrum of scary horror films out there? It's pretty good. It's not up amongst the absolute best, but it has many of the necessary components and Bernard Rose had many varying factors which fell his way.

Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) is a research graduate doing a study on urban legends, and this is how she comes across the Candyman legend - if you speak his name five times into a mirror, he is meant to appear and wreak bloody havoc. Trying to dig deeper into where all this came from, she investigates a murder which took place in a nearby building tenement with her friend Bernadette (Kasi Lemmons) leading to her being assaulted. After recovering, a mysterious figure claiming to be Candyman (Tony Todd) approaches her. She faints, and when she comes to she's covered in blood, with the beheaded dog of a woman she'd contacted during her research near her - and worse, the woman's baby is missing. Charged with murder, but bailed out by her husband Trevor (Xander Berkeley) she tries to maintain her innocence, but this is further complicated when Bernadette's body is found in her apartment after being killed by the apparition. The Candyman wants one thing - for Helen to join him in infamy and help revive his legend, seemingly claiming that she's his lover and fated to die a horrible death to become legend herself.

These films often supply twisted backstories to the plight of whatever villain or monster is in them, and this one creates a great mythos for itself. Daniel Robitaille was an African-American man living in late 1800s America, an artist and son of a former slave. Daniel fell in love with a white woman, and impregnated her which led to her father assembling a lynch mob to kill him - and they did this job with the requisite cruelty, common during that period. They severed his right hand with a rusty saw, covered his naked body in honey, and then threw him into an apiary where 1000s of bees stung him to death. Personally, I'm extremely allergic to bees - only a couple of stings can kill me, so the bee element of Candyman works as well as anything else does. The other major theme is racial, and of course this includes both the myth-making time period and modern Chicago, where the poor people who live in the building tenement of Cabrini-Green are nearly all black - in the original novel this translated into different classes in Liverpool.

One of the best elements of Candyman is it's haunting score, which at different times uses piano, organ and choir to modulate drama and an awareness of the otherworldly - almost in a religious sense. That the music is go good comes as no surprise when you learn that Philip Glass was involved with composing it - and he'd have to have been the most talented person working towards the end product of this film. Nominated for 3 Oscars (for Kundun, The Hours and Notes on a Scandal), Glass rarely participates in scoring a horror film but still manages to create one of the best horror scores I've ever listened to. It's eerily reminiscent of Wendy Carlos and her work on The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. He joins a select group (Joseph Bishara, Goblin, Colin Stetson, Mark Korven etc) and stands out as being one of the all time great musicians outside of film scoring, having worked with David Bowie and other high profile artists in the industry. That organ and choir work during Candyman's climax was especially memorable and created the perfect atmosphere for the ending of a horror film.

Visually, there's a lot going on. From cinematographer Anthony B. Richmond (who worked on the likes of Don't Look Now, The Man Who Fell to Earth and Let it Be with The Beatles) to visual effects supervisor William Cruse (The Green Mile and The Fisher King) and one of the most crucial men on set during certain scenes - expert bee wrangler Norman Gary, who had to breed thousands of bees to make sure the ones he used extensively in scenes where Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd would be covered in them would be very young and not likely to be able to sting yet. The effects are all practical (which I always prefer in horror) - but some of the most eye-popping moments are those with the bees. Also noteworthy is the view we get of Chicago during the opening credits - while not as unique today, it's one of the first times a large drone was able to film at such a close range looking straight down. It's always good for a film like this to give us views that are uncommon, disorientating and unusual. You'll see many horror films using that same 'strange spatial viewpoint' type of cinematography at it's start.

The story itself came from Clive Barker, well known for his macabre writings and occasional forays into filmmaking - Candyman is one of two major properties he's well known for, the other being Hellraiser. These days, a success in horror means you've spawned a kind of franchise, and the genre is well known for inevitable sequels to films that achieve even moderate success (Candyman was followed by two sequels and in 2021 a direct sequel to the first film brought Candyman into the modern era.) I really hadn't had much experience with Candyman at all, despite being a fan of the genre - it was just a major blind spot for me - our two paths seemed destined to never meet. I saw the 2021 film when it came out, and I was unimpressed, but now I think it's more a case of needing to have seen the original and become steeped in it's mythos to really be able to understand and appreciate this more recent film, and I look forward to giving it another chance.

As for Bernard Rose - despite arriving on the scene making horror films, the only real connection I'd made with him before this was with a film I really like a lot - Immortal Beloved, featuring Gary Oldman playing Beethoven, ill-fated in love. He made that only two years after Candyman, and his post-1990s work seems to have been sporadic and inconsistent. Snuff-Movie? Found footage film Sx_Tape? He seems to have wanted to blur the lines between film and reality in the 2000s and 2010s but has been met with critical condemnation and very little interest, really making for a lower profile career. I actually have Mr. Nice on DVD, but someone else bought it for me cheap, and I have no real desire to watch it. Rose had really reached the peak of his career in the early to mid-90s, and Candyman is probably the apex of all that - the film he'll really be remembered for. It seems that as time has gone on, Candyman has been looked at and evaluated more and more like a horror classic, and with it's eerie atmosphere and the presence of the large and imposing (but handsome and charming) Tony Todd it really works well.

I really enjoyed watching Candyman a lot, and the more I looked at it, the more about it I liked. It has that tragic kind of bittersweet and painful scope all the great horror films have - it's monster is really something you feel compelled to actually feel something for. It's protagonist is someone who may have had many flaws (being cultured and superior, she patronizes and looks down upon those people in Cabrini-Green in her own subtle way) but she's someone who was really undeserving of her ultimate fate. It's a film that speaks to urban legend and folklore, along with the power people give to myths - and I love films which incorporate that into them. It scares us by psychologically guiding us into a certain mindset, and it's one of those horror films where I'm more scared by the ideas it represents than by any visceral gore or sudden jump-scares. It's the pain that lingers in a place where unspeakable experiences seem to have soaked into the walls and ground, yearning for hushed voices to whisper and worry about curses. It's that fear of powerful horror that has transcended our physical world, and waits for us on the other side - waiting for a way through, just like a killer through a gap behind the bathroom mirror. Candyman.

Fat Girl (2001)



Frankly the film has basically nothing going for it other than it's exploitation of children. When you remove the underage sex scenes, and the rape scene, and all the child nudity you are left with a lazy puddle of nothingness. With an ending that is unearned and random.


D borderline F

I can respect why the nudity and sexual content may bother some, but there are other elements to the film that make it worthwhile. The performances are good and the relationship between the two sisters is interesting. The ending seems random, but I don't think it is. I think it connects to Anaïs's early comment about wanting her first time to be with a random nobody. The ending can be interpreted in different ways, but to me it does feel earned, even though it initially seems out of nowhere. Not trying to start an argument or anything. I can respect where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment.

We aren't really allowed to start fights over stuff like this...but really what was in this film to review other than the child exploitation? 1/3rd of the film was watching a 15 year old maneuver her first sexual encounters(graphically) and then the other parts of the film were the doldrums's of this vacation life. We could have or maybe should have gotten more from the mother character as she's an important part of the plot.

The main focus was on the sisters' relationship and their experiences growing up, along with their ideas and experiences about sexuality. I thought the acting was really good and the dialogue was well written. The mother isn't the focus of the film, so I didn't mind that there wasn't much with her. Personally, I think there is a lot of substance to the film. It's fine that you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion of course, no hard feelings on my part. I nominated the film because I think it is a genuinely great film. I recognise it is divisive, as many great films are, but my intent was not to offend or upset anyone.

Lawrence of Arabia strives for perfection in so many ways. Leans last five films (except for the documentary) are basically epic classics. And this film does so many things right, to start off with the film opens with the leads death and funeral. A popular trope from Life of Colonel Blimp and Citizen Kane that fit's the narrative style of this story. T.E. Lawrence is a hero that will survive to the end and we are going to get a story.

Visually it's a spectacular film, shot in the desert with thousands of extras set piece after set piece feels epic. This is a world that is strange but also filled with glorious excesses. So many shot in this film look good. The musically the score is thunderous but never overwhelming the visuals on screen. Peter O'Toole is a star and he's surrounded by a series of character actors that play off Lawrence so well. Even though Guinness and Quinn are in brown face...I can look past that and appreciate the character work from both of them. And O'Toole is great in this starting as a man of confidence to someone who's faith has been broken and shattered by the end of the war.

But the film has a major issue and that's the script. The story never really comes together so when you are watching a four hour film you feel like you are missing chunks of important narration and character growth. The movement of time and characters were confusing to me we didn't really get to see much of a progress from O'Toole in the first act to the second. I loved the big scenes and set pieces but random characters would die and I wasn't sure who they were.

I've noticed watching some of Lean's lesser work that he does try and do different things naratively. But they didn't really work on the same level as other Lean films that I enjoyed more (Blithe Spirit, Bridge on the River Kwai, and Great Expectations). It's a great film but it's a film that I feel like I need to have a commentary track going to understand everything that was going on.

B

That's the lengths to which Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William Petersen) will go to grab his man. To Live and Die in L.A. follows his attempts to arrest criminal Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe), a skilled but ruthless counterfeiter that is responsible for murdering Chance's partner. To do this, he has to reluctantly work with newly assigned partner, John Vukovich (John Pankow), a more straight-laced agent.

Released in 1985, this is as 80s as you can get. From its traditional plot of a cop set on revenge, paired with an opposite partner, to its gritty, Miami Vice-like ambience and overall feel. There is also a certain "sleaze" to its vibe, along with huge doses of ultra-violence that just makes it feel of a certain time.

Friedkin keeps the pace a bit on the restless side, so there isn't much of a chance to let your guard down. Maybe because of this, some cuts feel a bit abrupt, while also some subplots and storylines feel either underserved or end up falling by the side. One notable example is the subplot of Chance's informant/lover Ruth Lanier (Darlanne Fluegel).

My main issues, however, is with the character of Vukovich. I think Pankow was a bit miscast, but beyond that, I don't think the script gives him the depth and space that he needs; especially considering how important he becomes as the film progresses. It was halfway through the film that I kinda realized, "Oh, this is like an important guy. I thought he would be a 'red-shirt' nobody". Maybe that has to do with my expectations, or maybe with the way he was introduced and presented at first.

Chance, on the other hand, is cold and brooding. Petersen does a solid job with the character, and you believe that this guy doesn't really give a shit how he does things. Finally, Dafoe gives one of his committed performances, although I wouldn't have mind a bit more "crazy" from him. Finally, John Turturro gives a great supporting performance as one of Masters' men.

Despite some of the issues stated above, I really enjoyed this. I enjoyed the dark and gritty approach to things, and Friedkin did a solid job directing. It's worth mentioning that there's a particularly intense car chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The script has some issues, but a lot of the dialogue is sharp and cool, and there is a twist towards the end that's bound to make you go "what?!" Apparently, MGM executives weren't happy with it, but I guess Friedkin said "I'm gonna do it, and I don't give a shit how I do it."

Grade:

__________________

Re: Fat Girl, just sharing my perspective, but I thought the film was an interesting exploration and contrast of the sexual awakening of two sisters. There is a mixture of toxicity and true love between them, and I think the film juxtaposed those really well. I can understand the nudity bothering some people, but I disagree that there was "nothing" there.

I think the ending of Fat Girl was meant to juxtapose itself in comparison with the sex scenes between Elena and that rat Fernando. In fact, more than thinking it's meant to be a juxtaposition - it simply is meant to be one, and is anything but random. Catherine Breillat didn't think up that ending for a bit of a thrill, or just at random without careful consideration behind it. She's saying that what Fernando did to Elena is comparable with the savage rape - or, closer to the truth and being more controversial - the rape of Anaïs was simply brutally honest and therefore the earlier sex scenes with Fernando were more uncomfortable to watch. They were worse than what happens to Anaïs at the end, because of the falsity and deception. Elena felt violated and humiliated after her experience, but after Anaïs was raped she felt that nothing had really been done to her.

This. Obviously, not meant to minimize the implications of a rape, but ultimately Fernando lied and deceived Elena into having sex with him. The whole film consists of this elaborate emotional manipulation just for him to satisfy that need. It is not random that Breillat chooses to highlight Elena's screams both times that she has sex with Fernando. It is not meant to be pleasant or romantic.

I still ended up watching The Uninvited, even though it won't be in the mix for the 30th Hall of Fame. It was an interesting piece of cinema history as far as the supernatural is concerned, with so many of the films that preceded it having rational explanations for haunted houses and the paranormal. It was also interesting to see the ill-fated Gail Russell in her feature debut - the ultra-shy girl who ended up using booze to overcome her fears, which in the end destroyed her. I'm a little tired of these films featuring a romantic coupling where the guy is twice as old as the girl - but it doesn't really go anywhere in this, so it didn't bother me too much. I thought the effects were brilliant for it's day, and the cinematography - wow! So much invention and clever use of angles - the director of photography turned The Uninvited into a piece of art, and it was the most enjoyable aspect of the film to me. There's a little too much explanation, which removes more and more of the mystery - I prefer my scary movies to keep as much mystery as they can.

No big or proper review and rating from me for this one (unless MovieGal makes a sudden reappearance) but I felt like seeing it all anyway.

Valley of the Dolls (1967) -

Before I start this review, let me note that I'm not one who tends to pay attention to acting, so while I don't disagree with criticisms that the acting is mediocre, I didn't notice the apparent bad acting much and, therefore, I wasn't bothered by it. What I instead saw was a compelling story with a couple flaws here and there. If acting and dialogue are deal breakers for you though, you probably won't enjoy this film and may be bothered by the disconnect between the unintentionally funny bits and the straight-faced drama of the film. But again, these aren't elements I tend to care much about, so while I'm not going to pretend this is a good film, it is a good film for me. I, for one, was taken in by the three main characters as their individual stories of faded dreams and the forces both inside and outside their control which tore them down throughout the film were compelling and made for a handful of tragic scenes. Jennifer's final scene stuck out as especially moving, in fact. And this is all topped with the melancholy look of various shots and the haunting soundtrack from Dionne Warwick. The only thing holding my rating back is how certain phases of the individual character arcs felt rushed. Because of that, the breakdown-recovery-breakdown cycle didn't always feel true to the characters. The worst offender for this was Neely's actions after being released from the sanitorium. The execution of her arc after that felt very hodgepodge and some more breathing room would've worked wonders. Fortunately though, the film is mostly well-executed and, while the hammy bits will provide a cap to many people's enjoyment of it, I enjoyed my time with it well enough.

I still have four to watch (Dog Day Afternoon, Ship of Fools, Valley of the Dolls, and Lawrence of Arabia), but I might leave them for the first days of March. I still need to finish one film for my own February challenge, and wanna try sneaking one more from the 1950s scifi thread before the month ends. Also, if I find myself swamped, I think I can get away with writing something for Lawrence of Arabia, cause it's only been a couple of years since I saw it. I would really like to rewatch it, though. Either way, I don't think I'll have any issues finishing this before the deadline.

I might get to The Uninvited anyways.

It's worth it.

Yeah, but what if I find the film uninviting?

Throw it off a cliff then

I liked your review and you hit all the highlights of the film at least the ones that were highlights for me: Gail Russell and the cinematography.

I remember watching The Uninvited years ago and being touched by Gail Russell's performance so much that I sought out some of her other well known films: Wake of the Red Witch & Angel and the Badman were two that I really liked and liked her in. I see she made some more films that look pretty interesting so maybe I'll go on a Gail Russell binge

Enjoyed your review and I'm happy you liked Valley of the Dolls. I knew it wasn't going to be popular especially with a younger crowd. It's not a perfect movie, but it's one I really like.

I know you've said you're not that much into acting while watching a movie but look for a film that delivers emotions. I find the reasons we all love what we love in film to be interesting as it's so varied from person to person. Myself I can be elevated by brilliant acting as it's something I really look for...but it's not the only thing. I'm into set design. The art direction of a film can set the ambiance for me and feels like I'm in another place and time. And of course excellent writing scores high with me. Now VotD doesn't have the same caliber of writing as say Sweet Smell of Success, but for me lines like Neely's drunken rage scenes or her famous 'Sparkly Neely, sparkle."...put a smile on my face.