cinema history class: the house by the cemetery (1981)

   As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 4)
Movie: House by the Cemetery (1981)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

A researcher moves to the New England house formerly occupied by his colleague. And he gets more than he bargained for. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

First, the bad. I couldn't stand the kid. He seemed looked sort of like a cross between a demented version of Robbie Rist, rendered as a porcelain doll. And dubbed with a really annoying voice that doesn't sound right.

But other than that, this was a really great piece of the genre. Fulci is often referred to as the Godfather of Gore*, and he had definitely perfected it by the time he made this. The graphic shots of injuries are exactly the kind of thing that come to mind when I think of slasher films. It doesn't have the same kind of beauty that we saw in The Black Cat or A Lizard in a Woman's Skin, which we saw recently. The cinematography was good, but it was grittier than in the other films -- which works well. Going along with it, the music by The Goblin fits in well.

The plot was, arguably, too subtle. There were several lines that seemed to me to go nowhere, that Keith explained after the film. I'm kind of torn, since it would have been nice to understand these plot subtleties. But I also appreciate it when we don;t get hit over the head with things. Maybe a little more explicitness would have been in order.

I was really impressed by the way the ending played out. It had just enough vagueness to leave us all debating what exactly happened.

Ratings

Me: 9.5

Bob-O: 9.5

Christina: 10

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

______________________________

*Though, admittedly, Herschel Gordon Lewis is the first name most people associate with that title

wilko in mourning?

Wilko has developed this habit of crying over fuzzy toys.

In the video above, it's a bunch of feathers that had been tied to the end of a stick. Sometimes it's a fuzzy glove. Sometimes it's a sock.

Sometimes she'll hunch over with the toy between her front paws. Sometimes she'll carry it around. But she keeps meowing miserably. And she'll do it for a long time. I started the video above about a half hour after she started.  And she continued long after I stopped recording.

I have to wonder if she had a kitten who died?

cinema history class: the black cat (1981)

   

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 3)
Movie: The Black Cat (1981)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

A psychotic cat is killing people in northern England. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Before starting the film, Keith told us that the role of Professor Miles was originally intended for Peter Cushing. Cushing, however, turned it down because of Lucio Fulci's well-earned reputation for gore. The role went to Patrick Magee instead. I was disappointed by that revelation, thinking that it was a missed opportunity for Cushing to work his magic. But after all is said and done, I'm glad that Magee got the role. His gruff demeanor and gravelly voice were perfect for it. And I actually can't really imagine Cushing and his suave sophistication in the part.

As always, Fulci delivered on some beautiful shots, and the soundtrack is haunting. So this is an extremely atmospheric movie, and very engaging.

Where it comes up short is in exposition. The cat's motivation is never really explained well. Keith helped fill in the blanks. And the exposition in the trailer actually offers more explanation than the movie did -- which leads one to believe that there was an explanation that got cut out of the film as released. I also found some confusion in the way the movie seemed unsure of whether it was exploring some kind of science-based concept or something more supernatural. In the end, it included both, which kind of muddled things.

Still, even with those issues, it's hard to get over what a beautifully shot film this was.

Ratings

Me: 8.75

Christina: 8.1

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 10

cinema history class: lizard in a woman's skin (1971)

  

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 2)
Movie: Lizard in a Woman's Skin (1971)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

Carol Hammond (Florinda Bolkan) is having a series of vivid dreams about drugs, orgies and murder. But she awakens to find herself in the center of a real life murder investigation. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The big strength of Lizard is its beauty. Lucio Fulci had a remarkable knack for beautiful shots. And Lizard is a series of great shots. In that way, it was a joy to behold. As a related note, a lot of the early scenes reminded me of the old TV show, Space: 1999 which, despite its myriad flaws, had some incredibly gorgeous scenes.*

Where it suffered was in the convoluted plot. In some ways I was reminded of Massacre Time, which we saw a week earlier. As I noted in my post about MT, there was a huge a-ha moment which explained a lot. Watching Lizard, I kept expecting the a-ha moment that would offer clarity. But that moment never came, and I was left frustrated. Well, to be fair, there were some minor a-ha moments. But none of those provided the kind of satisfaction I was seeking. Related, the plot is a little too clever (or convoluted, depending on how charitable I'm feeling) for its own good. And it tended to drag a bit too long.

Which is not to say that it wasn't entertaining. Just that it could have been better.

One note about the trailer above: It appears to be for Schizoid. But that's the same movie. In some countries it was released under that name. I think Lizard in a Woman's Skin is a better title.

Ratings

Me: 7.5

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

_____________________________

*Sadly, Space: 1999 was often incoherent, so its beautiful visuals often came in service of stupidity.

happy tunesday! "mary ann" by dr. feelgood

 

It's been quite a while since Dr. Feelgood, one of my favorite bands, put out a new studio album of new material. And now the Facebook arguments begin.

I say that because of the band's history. At this point the group has spent more than half of its life without any of the original members who made it famous. They were formed in 1971, but by the mid 1980's, frontman Lee Brilleaux was the sole original member. At that point the band had become Brilleaux and an occasionally changing lineup backing him. That changed when Brilleaux died in 1994.

After Brilleaux died, two of the members got together with another former member, hired a new frontman (Pete Gage, who was subsequently replaced with David Kane) and soldiered on. The group has been much more stable since Brilleaux's death, but albums have been less frequent. There have been three studio albums of new recordings since then: On the Road Again (1996), Chess Masters (2000) and Repeat Prescription (2006)*.

So, on Facebook groups I often see debates about whether, post-Brilleaux, the band's claim to the name is legitimate -- and whether they are worthy of the name. I stay out of those fights -- as I try to stay out of most fights on Facebook. In the case of this fight, the band is, officially, Dr. Feelgood. And they are, from what I can gather -- though I have not seen them perform live, a damn good R&B group.

At any rate, they have a new studio album, Damn Right!, coming out next month. From what I have read, it consists of all new material. Including this gem, "Mary Ann."

_________________________________

*And it's worth noting that two of these albums were, arguably, gimmick releases. Chess Masters was a collection of songs from the old Chess Records. Repeat Prescription was a collection of new renditions of the band's old material. 

cinema history class: massacre time (1966)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 1)
Movie: Massacre Time (1966)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

Returning to his childhood home, prospector Tom Corbett (Franco Nero) is surprised by the changes.  Spaghetti ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Did you ever find yourself watching a movie, thinking that a lot of things don't make sense, when one line changes everything -- making sense of it all? That's what happens in Massacre Time. I kept wondering things like "why would he say that?" and "why didn't he kill him?" Some of these really bothered me -- the characters' actions and motivations seemed inexplicable. Then, maybe 80 or 90 percent of the way through, came the development that explained everything. I give the film a lot of credit for the way it did that -- teasing us, and then paying off.

The oddest part about watching this movie was the feeling that I was watching a Django flick. Django, the 1966 Spaghetti Western starring Franco Nero is -- depending on my mood -- either my favorite or second favorite Spaghetti Western. Because of its popularity, a lot of films in the genre were branded as sequels even though they are not related, were not produced to be sequels, and had protagonists not named Django and played by men other than Franco Nero. But this, released at about the same time as Django, actually felt like a real Django film. Franco Nero looked all Django-ey, and it had the same sensibilities. It even featured an opening scene that was very similar to one of the important scenes in Django. All it really needed was for Tom Corbett to be renamed, and it could very easily have been a Django prequel -- providing helpful backstory to the iconic character. Actually, if I recall Keith's comments correctly, it was branded as a Django movie in some of its European releases.

Ratings

Me: 9

Bob-O: 9.5

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

happy tunesday: "tell me i'm the only one" and "it's a sick sick world"

 I just came across this on Youtube recently.

"It's a Sick Sick World" (from the 1989 album, Le Beat Group Electrique) is among my favorite Wreckless Eric songs. And here he is, in 1989, performing it. If I'm not mistaken, the other two guys are Andre Barreau (bass) and Catfish Truton (drums) who played on the album. I absolutely love this recording.

Of course, "It's a Sick Sick World" is actually the second song in the video. Before it comes "Tell Me I'm the Only One," which is also from Le Beat Group Electrique. It's a good song, but not as good. 

2022 stupidstats 1: what a great regular season it has been for new york fans

Baseball's regular season is over, and for New York fans it has been a pretty good one. The Yankees finished in first place in the AL East. The Mets, after leading the NL East for most of the season, got swept by Atlanta in the last weekend, and ended up in second place*. But they did win 101 games, and are in the playoffs.

But was it the best regular season New York has had? Who's to say.

I actually started thinking about it early this summer, when the Mets and Yankees were both doing well, and seemed to have realistic shots at winning their divisions.

Spoiler alert: I decided to look at the product of the two teams' winning percentages. If, for example, both teams have completely mediocre records of 81-81, then my statistic would be .250. That is, .500 × .500.

I wanted a statistic that captured both teams' performances. Obvious candidates are combined winning percentage and total wins. Both have some advantages, to be sure. Combined winning percentage is the better of the two because it normalizes for the length of a season. If both teams do very well in a season that's shortened by a strike or a pandemic, total wins won't reflect how good a season it was.

But both teams fail in one regard. I wanted a statistic that gives a better score if both teams do well than if one does very well and the other is mediocre. For example, I consider it a better year if both teams go 100-62 than if one goes 120-42 and the other goes 80-82. Total wins and total winning percentage doesn't capture that. But mine does. If both teams go 100-62, my statistic is .381. If one goes 120-42 and the other goes 80-82, my statistic is .366.

My statistic doesn't account for post-season performance, which is why I said (above) that this has been a pretty good regular season. If you care about the post-season, and most sports fans do, the 2000 was the best season for New York baseball in the Yankees/Mets era. My statistic also doesn't account in any way for a team's position in the final standings. Both teams finishing in first place is better than one (or both) finishing out of the playoffs -- regardless of record. And I will get to that point in a bit.

Based on my statistic, this has been the second-best regular season for New York since the Mets' inception. See the following table. For statistics that combine the teams' records, each item is shaded in green if it is the best so far.

In 2022, the product of the Mets' and Yankees' winning percentages is 0.381. That's second to 1998, when the product was .382. But 1992's result was driven by the Yankees, who finished at 114-48. The Mets were respectable, finishing 88-74, in second place. But that wasn't good enough to make the postseason, so by any reasonable account, this has been a better year.

So, I am open to hearing suggestions for other statistics to measure the goodness of a regular season for two teams. Of course, the two teams don't have to be the Mets and Yankees. For Chicago fans it could be the Cubs and White Sox. Or it can be any two teams. Someone who likes the Royals and the Marlins can look at the combined statistics of those two teams. And similar analyses can be done for a combination of larger numbers of teams. For 50+ years New York had three teams between the AL and NL. There's no reason one couldn't look at them combined.

For what it's worth, this has been the best regular season in two regards: It's the first time that both the Mets and the Yankees won at least 99 games. And the minimum of their two winning percentages—0.611—is the highest it's ever been.

__________________________________________________________

*They have the same record as Atlanta, but MLB's first tiebreaker is head to head record (which, by the way, is a stupid tiebreaker -- but that's another matter), so they are officially in second place.

cinema history class: the naked kiss (1964)

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 5, Christina)
Movie: The Naked Kiss (1964)
Directed by Samuel Fuller

Plot:

A prostitute ditches the business and tries to go straight. But is a nice simple life out of the life in the cards? Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The Naked Kiss has kind of a dual personality. It's got one of the most powerful opening scenes I can recall seeing. It was exciting and dramatic, and had me wondering what was going on. And, for what it's worth, its musical accompaniment was superb. After that opening, it slows down a bit -- which I suppose, is necessary. As thrilling as it is to be at the redline, you can't maintain that intensity indefinitely.

After that opening scene there's a stretch where the movie maintains a level of interest, but it does slowly weaken. The thing is, there's one moment -- maybe two thirds of the way through -- that just turns everything upside down. And from then on, it's a wild ride to the end.

It's important to remember that tNK is from 1964—a time when the code still limited movie content. Dealing with topics such as prostitution, pedophilia and abortion, it was envelope-pushing for its time. And I give it credit for that. I also give it credit for the tight dialogue that one would expect from a film noir.

Another favorite thing about this movie is the ambiguous portrayal of Griff, the cop (Anthony Eisley). I spent a lot of the film trying to figure him out. And every time I thought I understood him, something happened to change my perception. It was quite interesting. 

Ratings

Me: 8.7

Bob-O: 8.8

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

Keith: 9.8

what really happened on june 14, 1987?

 I've been watching Seinfeld, the TV series, on Netflix. I never made a point of watching it in its original run. Over the years, I've seen a bunch of the episodes and lots of clips. I'm familiar with a lot of the catchphrases and the major characters. But now I decided to watch it from episode 1...start to finish. Except, I suppose, for that one episode in the last season that's unavailable because it offended people. I'll let Joe address that issue.

I'm in the third season; last night I watched the two-part episode, "The Boyfriend," in which Jerry strikes up a friendship with Keith Hernandez, the former baseball player. Part of the episode centers on Kramer and Newman hating Hernandez because they believe he spat at them after a game. The whole thing is played as a parody of the Kennedy assassination, and it's done pretty well. I won't go into detail, since that would take too long and I won't do it justice.

But the one thing that annoys me.

The episode would have you believe that, on June 14, 1987, the Mets lost to the Phillies because of a crucial error by Hernandez. In truth, on that date the Mets beat the Pirates 7-3 (in Pittsburgh). That totally ruins the plot for me (/sarc). Keith Hernandez played for the Mets for six and a fraction seasons. I can't help but assume that, during that time, there was at least one loss that could plausibly be blamed (at least in part) on him, and used for the plot. 

In fairness to the writers, I do acknowledge that the episode  was made in the early 1990s. Back then it wasn't so easy to look up what happened on any given date, or search to find a game that suits the needs of the episode. It's not as if I actually remembered what happened on that day. I looked it up on baseball reference. Were it not so easy to uplook such things, I never would have checked.