cinema history class: two thousand maniacs! (1964)

The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake"
We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his associates.

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

Week 2: Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964)
Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis

My Impressions Going In:
I'd heard of this, primarily because of it's theme song "Robert E. Lee Broke His Musket on His Knee." I also had some familiarity with the plot, though not the finer points.

Plot:
The residents of a Southern town lure Northern tourists to a centennial celebration. Unbeknownst to the Northerners, the celebration involves some brutal revenge killings.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
In the interests of full disclosure, I need to acknowledge that I didn't see this movie with the rest of the class. Ethan and I were both unable to attend. As such, neither of us rated the film. I did watch the movie on my own (Thanks, Tubi!), and my comments are based on that viewing. But I still don't feel right about rating the film.

Maniacs is a surprisingly fun romp (assuming you have sufficient tolerance for gratuitous gore. There is a lot of red in there. But the deaths are cleverly done -- there's a barrel roll, a quartering, and of course a variation of an old carnival game. Of course, this is a movie from the 1960s. So the blood and gore, as graphic as it is, still has a cartoonish look. This isn't Saw. Rather, it's crude hicksploitation at its best.

After watching Blood Feast (and having seen The Gore Gore Girls a few years ago, I was skeptical of this. But this is superior to those in every way possible -- picture quality, sound quality, script, acting, premise. The humor was also a definite bonus. I'm not saying it's a great film, but it is definitely good. And its originality earns it some extra kudos.

Ratings

Bob-O: 9

Christina: 8.1

Dave: 8.8

Joe: 10

cinema history class: blood feast (1963)

The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake"
We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his asscoiates.

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

Week 1: Blood Feast (1965)
Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis

My Impressions Going In:
Never heard of it.

Plot:
Blood Feast, to put it gently, sucks. The low budget sets, the bad sound, the orange makeup...It was all ineptly made.

I give it points because I was amused by the final scene, and because the movie was, apparently, the first of its kind. Being an innovative groundbreaking film should count for something.

Ratings

Me: 3.5

Bob-O: 7.2

Christina: 5.8

Dave: 8.2

Ethan: 4

cinema history class: blue sunshine (1978)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"

Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.

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

Week 6: Blue Sunshine (1978)
                (Christina's pick)
Directed by Jeff Lieberman

My Impressions Going In:
Never heard of it.

Plot
People are losing their hair, their minds and their lives. And one man is trying to figure out why.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I love the way Blue Sunshine opens alternating between action and shots of the moon (the latter accompanied by credits). It was a creative way of whetting the audience's appetite -- teasing and teasing some more. And that set the tone. The camera work was particularly strong, and helps to drive a sense of anxious anticipation.

I particularly like the gritty 1970s feel. And it was fun to see Mark Goddard in a more grown-up role than his Lost in Space turn, which is what I remember him from. That said, there were some ways that this felt like a small movie, and I wanted it to be bigger. There was so much to like, and I wanted to like it even more.

The ending was somewhat disappointing in its abruptness. As the action ends, text appears to let us know how things ultimately turned out. I have seen other movies do that, sometimes to good effect. But to make that work, it has to appear at a time when the story feels truly concluded. This didn't.

Ratings

Me: 8

Bob-O: 9.8

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 9

Joe: 10
Keith: 9.5
Rickard: 8

cinema history class: invaders from mars (1953)

 The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"

Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.

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

Week 5: Invaders from Mars (1953)
                (Bob-O's pick)
Directed by William Cameron Menzies

My Impressions Going In:
I'd heard of this movie and knew that it involved Martians invading (I mean, the title kind of gives that way). I also knew it's a classic. But I didn't know much in the way of specifics.

Plot:
Martians have landed, and they're taking over the minds of Earthlings.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

This should have been nothing more than a cheesy little 1950's sci-fi thriller. But it exceeded expectations. It was spooky and scary. And really fun.

The movie had an odd mix of visual styles. The McLean family farmhouse looked like pure Americana. But the other sets, notably the police station seemed to summon German expressionism. It's eerily imposing as young Jimmy talks to the police. And eerily imposing is a good way to describe a lot of the visuals. The walls of the Martians' underground lair, the head Martian's disembodied head...the visuals were amazing.

One thing I didn't like about the film was the ending. It was one of those annoying ambiguous things that was supposed to be artsy. Joe reconciled himself to it by deciding that they had intended the audience to infer a space-time causality loop -- like the time Kelsey Grammar appeared on Star Trek: TNG. But I think that's giving the movie way too much credit. I think they just didn't know how to end it. Fortunately, the European release had a better ending, which I much preferred.

Ratings

Me: 9
Christina: 9.5 or 9.6, depending on which ending

Ethan: 9

Joe: 10
Keith: 9.5 or 9.6, depending on which ending