cinema history class: getting slaughtered by tod slaughter!

 The session: Getting Slaughtered by Tod Slaughter!

films starring the "Monster Man of Europe, the criminally underappreciated Tod Slaughter

The Movies and Grades:

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Necessary Warning -- there may be spoilers

The big question from this session is how Tod Slaughter has remained so unknown? Keith explained it away as his choosing to stay in England and return to the stage. At any rate, he could have been up there with horror film stars such as Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Instead, he seems to be little more than a footnote in cinema lore.

But what a footnote he is! With his rubber face and his expressions of feigned indignation, he is always interesting to watch, and entertaining. In these movies, he was, in many ways, the perfect villain. In his introduction, Keith noted that he was the prototype for the "Dastardly Dan" type character -- the guy who would tie a young damsel to a railroad track. And you can totally see it. He may not be literally twirling a mustache, but he should be.

These movies were not monster movies, unlike so many (but not all of) the films of Cushing and Lee. These were crime dramas. Tod Slaughter plays the villain, always willing to kill in order to make a buck. True to the Dastardly Dan persona, there's always a woman to serve as his innocent victim. And, of course, the villain has to get it in the end.

These films did seem a bit claustrophobic, and had the staging of plays. That's especially true of The Greed of William Hart, which is an adaptation of the Burke and Hare story. Keith, and others in the class, think that Burke and Hare was done better in The Flesh and The Fiends (1960), but I liked this version better.

These were fun stories told in an entertaining way. I went into this session with very low expectations, since Keith was featuring an actor I had never heard of, and showing code-era films. But I'm happy to say that this went way beyond all expectations.

Trailers (or, in their absence, other YouTube clips related to the films):

cinema history class: bring your own movie month

The session: Bring Your Own Movie Month
In which everyone in the class takes a turn at presenting a movie

The movies:
Dave: The Invisible Man (1933) directed by James Whale
Joe: Dracula and Son (European version) (1976) directed by Edouard Molinaro
Ethan: Possession (1981) directed by Andrzej Zulawski
Me: They Live (1988) directed by John Carpenter
Bob-O: Werewolf of London (1935) directed by Stuart Walker
Joe redux: Dracula and Son (American version) (1976) directed by by Edouard Molinaro
Christina: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) directed by Philip Kaufman

Grades:

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Necessary Warning -- there may be spoilers

For several reasons (that I won't address here), I have decided to stop writing a post for every movie we see at Keith's. Instead, I am going to try writing one post for each session. There are exceptions, but generally each session consists of four movies on a theme. Of course, Bring Your Own Movie Month is a particularly challenging session to make the switch. For starters, of all the sessions in the year it's the least coherent -- because there is now overarching theme to the movies. In addition, with five people in the class (+ Keith's wife, Christina), BYOMM usually consists of six movies. And this year, there were seven weeks. Joe's choice, Dracula and Son, was a French production, with significant differences between the European and American releases. Joe showed us the European version, but a few weeks later Keith showed us the American version so we could compare and contrast.

On the subject of Dracula and Son, that movie holds the distinction of being Christopher Lee's last film portrayal of Dracula. On the whole, the European release is an uneasy blend of comedy and horror. It doesn't fully commit to either one, and suffers for that. That said, it does have some good moments -- both comedic and horror. I also have to give it some credit for the creative element that vampires become human as a result of having sex with a human. I preferred the American version because it comitted more fully to being a comedy. There were three basic differences between the two versions: The dialogue (which was dubbed) was changed to include more jokes, there was a narrator (which was reminiscent of Rocky and Bullwinkle), and it was considerably shorter. Though my feelings weren't shared by everyone in the room, I definitely preferred the funnier approach.

The Invisible Man, which Dave chose is, without qualification, a classic. And classics get to be considered classics for a reason. Most noteworthy are the special effects which were far ahead of the time. Bob-O also went with an old movie, 1935's Werewolf of London. It had good effects, and snappy dialog -- especially between the two landladies. But, a few weeks later it has kind of faded from my memory, which is a bad sign.

Ethan chose Possession, which is a challenging cold war era movie to watch. There is so much left unexplained and it can be very confusing. The word "possession" can have many meanings, and it's a very appropriate title for the film, as it focuses on so many types of possession or possessiveness. There's the relationship between the protagonists Mark and Anna -- Anna wants a divorce, but Mark isn't willing to let her go. The relationships between Anna's lover and both Anna and Mark. There's the fact of Mark being possessed by the spy agency he works for, and fact of Anna being possessed by whatever is that thing growing inside of her. Though it's not a horror movie in the traditional sense of the word, it has many heart-stopping moments. Of course, there are also the WTF moments. The movie left me confused and exhausted.

I brought to the class 1988's They Live, a starring vehicle for professional wrestler, Rowdy Roddy Piper. I chose it because I kind of enjoyed professional wrestling back in the day and I definitely was a fan of Piper. In fact, in college I was a member of "Piper's Vipers," a Roddy Piper fan club on campus. The club didn;t do anything, but we got a lot of coverage in the campus media since all of our members were editors on the campus paper. They Live is, I think, an underappreciated commentary on then-contemporary politics. It actually pairs well with Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which was Christina's choice. I should note that Christina said she originally had another movie in mind, but switched to Invasion because she thought it would be a good complement to They Live. Both movies are ostensibly about space aliens taking over, but use the basic plot as a way to comment on contemporary issues. They Live was a critique of the Reagan era (though Piper, agreeing with Reagan, declined to talk about that aspect when on publicity tours), while Invasion was more about Communism. I tend to sympathize more with the latter than the former, though I think that what makes Invasion so impressive is that anyone of any political stripe can view it through his or her own lens and see it as an allegory against whatever political movement he or she doesn't like. You don't like Trump? You can see the movie as a takedown of MAGA. You don't like current progressive trends? You can similarly view it as a critique of wokeism.

Trailers:

cinema history class: the strange door (1951)

The session: "Happy Birthday, Charles Laughton"
In honor of Charles Laughton's Birthday, Keith presented an abbreviated (two-week) session of movies he starred in.

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

Week 2: The Strange Door (1951)
Directed by Joseph Pevney

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I had never heard of it.

Plot:
A highborn madman, infuriated that his sweetheart threw him over for his brother takes elaborate revenge -- and plots even further and more elaborate revenge. Why can't family just get along?

Reaction and Other Folderol:
So soon after I conclude that I just can't get into the movies set in medieval castles, Keith shows us this to prove me wrong. It may be sacrilige, but maybe I just am not into Vincent Price in medieval castles.

At any rate, the early sequence, in which de Beaulieu (did I spell that correctly?) gets snared by Maletroit's (that too?) plot seems to work too well. I'm not sure why that little bit annoyed me, but it did. Happily, things get more interesting and more suspenseful as the film progresses. And in the end, the final exciting sequence (involving the moving wall trap) was played perfectly. If only the plot were a little less convoluted.

Ratings
Me: 9.5
Bob-O: 9.5
Dave: 9.7
Ethan: 9
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the hunchback of notre dame (1939)

The session: "Happy Birthday, Charles Laughton"
In honor of Charles Laughton's Birthday, Keith presented an abbreviated (two-week) session of movies he starred in.

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

Week 1: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
Directed by William Dieterle

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this. I mean, I am aware of the novel (though I never read it), but I hadn't heard of this particular adaptation.

Plot:
A high-positioned man, enraged that the woman he wants is not interested in her, unleashes his anger on her and on the deformed man on whom she took pity.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
There were ways that Hunchback felt like an epic, though I think a movie has to somehow have a broader scope to qualify for that term. Joe used the word "spectacle," and I think that's probably more appropriate. Charlie Laughton turned in the performance of a lifetime. How showed a tremendous range of emotions, which managed to show through the extensive makeup that was needed for his role as Quasimodo. There are scenes with thousands of extras, and amazing shots. The violence and torture pushed the envelope (for 1939). This was, overall, an amazing production.

If I had it to do over, I would have rated this a 10, but in class I said 9.5, so that's what I gave it.

Ratings
Me: 9.5
Bob-O: 10
Dave: 10
Ethan: 10
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the raven (1963)

The session: "June is Corman! Corman is June!"
In memory of famed director (who died in May), Roger Corman, we view four films that he directed.

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

Week 4: The Raven (1963)
Directed by Roger Corman

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
Two old sorcerers, jealous of each others' skills and loves, square off in a final battle.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Featuring three big stars -- Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Vincent Price, this was a really well done blend of comedy and magic. The stars were great -- that is, all except for Jack Nicholson, who seemed out of place. He came off more like an extra in an episode of Gidget. Still and all it was a fun watch.

The biggest drawback for me was the fact that, when it came down to it, this was another Vincent price in a castle movie. Those are just not my thing. 

Ratings
Me: 7
Bob-O: 10
Dave: 9.7
Ethan: 9.5
Joe: 10

more cats and more names

 Some time ago, I posted a list of names of cats we have had. It's been a while and there have been a few new cats. So it's time to post an updated list. Following is the text of the prior list, updated with the new names. As before, these names are in chronological order. Copper is the last cat that was on the old list. The new entries start with Wilko

• Bungee: When I first brought this cat home, I started playing with her. The way she went after a string toy, she looked like she was bungee-jumping.
• Speck: One of his distinguishing features was his pink nose with a black speck on it.
• Lena: Ethan picked out the name Lena. I have no idea why.
• Hrothgar: Ethan was studying Beowulf when we got this cat, and I really liked the names of the characters.
• Tiger: This one looked like a miniature tiger.
• Morgan: We got Morgan used, so I have no idea how he got his name.
• Red: He had a beautiful red coat so we started calling him "Red." We never got around to giving him any other name.
• Cream: He had a beautiful creamy coat so we started calling him "Cream." We never got around to giving him any other name.
• Snowflake: She was white, so...
• Spiderman: This was Asher's first cat. He was into Spiderman and had picked out the name before the cat was even born.
• 18: Asher was understandably upset after Spiderman died as a kitten (while we were in Florida). As a way of consoling him on the thousand-plus mile drive home, we talked about him getting another cat. When we asked what he would name it, he suggested "Please Don't Die, Baby." That seemed a bit awkward. 18 is a lucky number in Judaism as it symbolizes life*, so I suggested that it would be a good substitute. I'm very glad that Asher went for it.
  
• Wiglaf: This name was another name from to Beowulf.
• Copper: He had a beautiful copper coat.
• Wilko: Named after British guitarist, Wilko Johnson, who was in the original ,lineup of Dr. Feelgood.
• Copic: Named after Sharon's favorite brand of professional quality markers
• Bugsy: Named for Bugs Bunny
• Tarantula: I'm not sure how Josh came up with that name. The alternative was "Brick," which I prefer.
• Tuli: "Tuli" is a diminutive form of "Khatool" which is the Hebrew word for cat. So "Tuli" is, essentially, "Kitty."
  

flower show '24

2022 marked the first time I entered the LIDS flower show. Before then, I had clerked at shows and used that as my reason for not entering. That strategy worked until someone noted that a person can enter a show and be a clerk. What a person cannot do is be a judge and an entrant in the same show. I have no interest in being a judge, and am not qualified tom judge a show anyway. But I enjoy clerking.

This year I agreed to enter again. I really didn't want to -- it means getting up super early to prepare. But the club has been shrinking lately -- due largely to demographics and deer. And I felt the club really could use all the entries it could get. My 20 plants (the entry limit is 20 plants per household) -- less, considering that some would get damaged in transit -- would make a difference.

As I groomed my scapes for entry, I didn't worry excessively. I got a bunch of ribbons two years ago, so I had decided that ribbons didn't matter to me anymore. I was doing it for the club. So my attitude was somewhat lackadaisical. "I don't care about ribbons" was my mantra, and that really made it a lot easier to relax while I groomed. Some brown marks on the foliage? ugly scars from old buds? Who cares. These'll be pretty flowers for the public to appreciate. I felt a twinge of shame when someone on the placement team summoned me to say that I should be grooming my scapes better before submitting them. And, after that, I did try to do a better job. But most of my entries were already in and I had come without the tools you really need for the job. Instead of an X-Acto blade, I had my fingernails. Instead of a little brush, I had my breath.

And I wasn't really worried -- confident in my conviction that all that mattered was helping with the number of entries. But the judging began, and I had to follow my team of judges around, obeying their instructions. And I soon found my convictions going out the door. As the judges looked over one of my entries they were merciless. "Did they even groom this at all? Look at this!" Of course, the judges didn't know that this was one of my entries. So when they noted some imperfections in the petals, and one looked at me and said "I would have just thrown it in the garbage," she wasn't trying to get personal. It stung, but I had to just stand there and not show any emotion. But at that moment I started wishing I had taken the grooming more seriously.

Fortunately, that was among the worst of my entries. Though another one lost a lot of points because I had failed to remove seed pods. That was actually a surprise. You don't want to remove buds (unless they're interfering with the bloom), so it never occurred to me that you had to remove seed pods. Live and learn.

But when one of my entries earned a purple ribbon -- scoring a 97, I was starting to get some hope. Maybe it would be a candidate for Best in Show. That thought lasted until the next flower was judged a 98. But now there was hope. And, with it, there were recriminations. If only I had groomed better, that 97 could have been a 99 -- or maybe 100. BUT NOOOOO! I had to relax through the grooming, and now I was paying the price. Damnit.

But a little later, one of my entries (Run N The Green Light) earned a 99! Though another plant in that class also scored a 99, the judges decided that mine was better. And the euphoria hit as I realized that I had won a best in class. In the end, I scored another best in class with Anniversary Lace. But I didn't even realize that at first, since it was judged by the other team of judges.

So now, in the second show I had entered, I had two flowers on the winner's table. I didn't get Best in Show, which comes with a cash prize, but I guess my results were pretty good -- especially considering my attitude going in. Next time I'll actually try to win.

cinema history class: x: the man with the x-ray eyes (1963)

The session: "June is Corman! Corman is June!"
In memory of famed director (who died in May), Roger Corman, we view four films that he directed.

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

Week 3: X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963)
Directed by Roger Corman

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A doctor has developed eyedrops to improve people's vision, and tests them on himself, with interesting results.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
First things first, there's something I need to get off my chest about this movie. It's not a big deal. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. But there's something that bugged me -- more than I should have let it. And you'll think I'm petty for caring about it and mentioning it. At the start of the movie, Dr. Xavier talks about his motivation for developing his experimental eyedrops. He talks about how people can only see a very limited subset of the electromagnetic spectrum. But that's not the limitation that the drops addressed. Or at least it's not the only issue they addressed. In the first experiment we see, the drops give a monkey some level of x-ray vision. That's very different from an extended visual range. And that's what we see as the movie unfolds: the drops produce all kinds of enhanced vision. The full nature of the enhanced vision isn't even made clear. So maybe my issue can be explained away very simply -- Dr. Xavier had one idea in mind, and his experimental eyedrops did a lot more. That's not really problematic. In fact, it makes perfect sense as the premise for a movie. So I really shouldn't complain about this. But, damn, I already wrote this long paragraph and I don't want it to go to waste. So spare me your lectures about sunk cost.

Putting all that aside (and, please, let's do put it aside), X is an interesting and cerebral film. At times it meanders as Dr. Xavier goes from adventure to adventure, fleeing the trouble that he and his experiment have gotten him into. And things go from bad to worse until the ultimate denouement, which seems like something The Twilight Zone would have done. It's actually impressive that they were able to accomplish so much on such a small budget. The evolution of Dr. Xavier's eyes was truly horrifying.

I hadn't thought about it until Vin noted it, but there are ways that this felt like The Invisible Man or a variation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Myself, I saw more of Flowers for Algernon and Mr. Superinvisible. But that last one may be because of the party scene. But that party scene was great. Ray Milland, as Dr. Xavier, was great with his sly lecherous grin.

Overall, a very strong film.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9.7
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 9
Joe: 10
Vin: 7.5

cinema history class: the undead (1957)

The session: "June is Corman! Corman is June!"
In memory of famed director (who died in May), Roger Corman, we view four films that he directed.

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

Week 2: The Undead (1957)
Directed by Roger Corman

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
An experiment with hypnosis sends a woman back in time to one of her earlier lives

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Undead is an exercise in contrasts. It's a story of damnation and a story of salvation. And it's an odd mix of science fiction and fairytale. It also explores a topic that fascinates me (and that is often poorly portrayed), the fact that all aspects of our lives are interrelated. And the fact that you can't simply change one thing and expect everything else to remain intact.

The ending was way more Twilight Zoney than I was expecting, but that saved a sometimes-confusing plot. Once again I am learning that not all low-budget directors are the same. Roger Corman is definitely not Ed Wood. 

Ratings
Me: 8.5
Bob-O: 9.6
Ethan: 8
Joe: 10
Rich: 8

cinema history class: day the world ended (1955)

The session: "June is Corman! Corman is June!"
In memory of famed director (who died in May), Roger Corman, we view four films that he directed.

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

Week 1: Day the World Ended (1955)
Directed by Roger Corman

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
After a nuclear war, seven people find themselves in a sheltered valley. They survived the war. Can they survive each other?

Reaction and Other Folderol:
This wasn't really what I was expecting. Because of Corman's reputation for putting together movies on a tight budget, I was expecting a trashy kind Plan 9 type of thing. But apparently Roger Corman was very different from Ed Wood. Despite the low budget and sometimes claustrophobic feel, this was a very good movie. And it was, dare I say it, surprisingly cerebral.

I did enjoy some cute touches that blurred that played with the distinction between beginning and ending. And the movie did a good job of teasing us early on by just showing a little bit of the main antagonistic monster (that is, the nonhuman one).

There was one element of the movie that I think was too subtle. There was a secondary plot involving that monster and one of the women. It was clear that the movie was trying to imply something. But it wasn't entirely clear what. I guessed correctly at part of it, but the rest eluded me. Keith explained afterwards, since none of us got it. And that was a loss, because that understanding would have turned an "oh, that's clever" moment at the end into a full-blown "Holy Shit!"

The characters were reasonably well developed, so the interaction was interesting to watch. And rooting for one person over another was pretty easy. But there were ways that the characterizations were inconsistent, which detracted from the overall movie.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that this reminded me of the terrible 1992 sitcom, Woops!. But that show sucked, so maybe I shouldn't mention it. Too late.

Ratings
Me: 8.75
Bob-O: 9.4
Ethan: 6
Joe: 10
Rich: 8

cinema history class: yog, monster from space (1971)

The session: "Japanese Sci-Fi"
Four Japanese science fiction movies -- but not the cliche giant monster kind

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

Week 4: Yog, Monster from Space (1971)
Directed by Ishiro Honda

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A space probe is infiltrated by an alien life form. It wreaks havoc and destruction upon its return to earth.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I really should like this movie more than I did. The premise is a reasonably good one, even if it's been done in other films. And the giant squid was really fun to watch. But once the squid was gone, replaced with other giant sea creatures, the magic was kind of gone.

The thing here is that this was a lot like the Tsuburaya giant monster movies featuring the likes of Godzilla, Mothra and Rodan. And the fact is I never really developed an affection for those films.

Ratings
Me: 6
Bob-O: 9.1
Christina: 8.5
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 7

cinema history class: terror from beneath the sea (1966)

The session: "Japanese Sci-Fi"
Four Japanese science fiction movies -- but not the cliche giant monster kind

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

Week 3: Terror from Beneath the Sea (1966)
Directed by Hajime Sato

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
Reporters attending an underwater missile test discover a city full of water cyborgs -- and an evil villain running the show.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Before staring, I'd like to note that one of the alternate titles was Agent X-2: Operation Underwater. In some ways that title is less descriptive, but I still like it better.

There's a strong element of James Bond-styled adventure here. Especially in the form of the sunglasses-clad villain. And that's just one of the many obvious influences that went into this mix. I can see where this borrowed from any number of zombie movies.

In many ways, the movie is very silly, what with the ill-fitting cyborg costumes, the very simple controllers for the cyborgs, and other things like that. But it still produced a lot of suspense -- way more than a movie this cheesy should be expected to manage. The effects were very...effective despite being primitive. And there was great incidental music. And I did love the villain's monologue. 

Ratings
Me: 8.5
Bob-O: 9
Christina: 8.7
Dave: 9.3
Ethan: 6.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: goke, body snatcher from hell (1968)

The session: "Japanese Sci-Fi"
Four Japanese science fiction movies -- but not the cliche giant monster kind

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

Week 2: Goke, Body Snatcher from Hell (1968)
Directed by Hajime Sato:

I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
After they crash land, the passengers of an airliner find themselves fighting for survival against a space alien

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I wouldn't say that Goke is incoherent, but it comes damn close. They threw in way too many science fiction tropes, which made it hard to follow the plot. This was most apparent at the ending. There were a lot of different good ideas for how to end the film, but it seems like they couldn't decide which to use. As a result, there were a bunch of points where it should have ended, but instead plowed into another ending.

Some of the visual effects were good, but others were laughably bad. The scenes on the alien spaceship reminded me of the worst of season 1 Space: 1999 -- though if I want to be charitable I can attribute it to their desire to achieve an otherworldly feel. But while we're on the subject of effects from Space: 1999, it's also worth noting that some of the Goke's effects -- notably the rockslides -- seems like the worst of season 2 of that show.

Add to that the fact the soundtrack was overhearing and I couldn't really like any of the characters.

Ratings
Me: 5
Bob-O: 9
Christina: 9.3
Dave: 8.7
Ethan: 8.5

cinema history class: the green slime (1968)

The session: "Japanese Sci-Fi"
Four Japanese science fiction movies -- but not the cliche giant monster kind

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

Week 1: Green Slime (1968)
Directed by Kinji Fukasaku

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
Astronauts destroy an asteroid to save earth. But they unleash a deadly alien life that starts out as green slime.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Back when I was in grad school, my Sunday night ritual consisted of watching Dr. Who with my friends Rod and Diana. Though it was part of my weekly routine, I never really got into that show. The one thing I remember well was that the special effects were pretty bad -- comedically bad. And in some ways, the effects in Slime brought me back to that. The aleins here were in equal measure Dr. Who and Sid and Marty Krofft.

But I'd be doing the movie a disservice if I were to leave it at that. For starters, I can get on my soapbox, and note that the alien monsters are actually very effective. The cheesiest of costumes beat the best CGI. And the fact is that the plot itself is legitimately serious science-fiction. It could do with some better character development, but all in all it was reasonably done.

By the way, I would be remiss if I failed to note the totally groovy theme song. This has got to be one of the best movie themes ever. And, while these writeups usually only have one video (typically, a trailer), I will make an exception here.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9.5
Christina: 9.1
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 7

cinema history class: guyana: cult of the damned (1979)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

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

Week 4: Guyana: Cult of the Damned (1979)
Directed by Rene Cardona, Jr.

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A cult leader moves his whole congregation from San Francisco to Guyana. There, he rules as a kind of cross between a messiah figure and a dictator -- until he makes everyone drink poison

Reaction and Other Folderol:
This was essentially a docudrama of the Jonestown Massacre, though the names of the major players were changed owing to the recency of events. I was thirteen when the massacre occurred, so I remember it, but I wasn't much of a news junkie then, so there were many details that I didn't know.  Keith told us that this movie was reasonably true to events, though it made it appear  as though the Jonestown victims were mostly White, when in fact they were mostly Black. And, of course, there's the minor detail of name changes -- for example, Jim Jones was represented as Jim Johnson and Jonestown was therefore rebranded as Johnsontown (which, in my opinion isn't as catchy). But, in terms of realism, the final scenes did a really good job of recreating some of the famous news photos that I remember from the time.

Stuart Whitman gives the performance of a lifetime as James Johnson. The movie opens with an extended scene of him preaching in his an Francisco church, and he's mesmerizing. He exudes the charisma that the real life Jim Jones must have had. And he just gets better from there. By necessity, the film focused on only a handful of the Johnsontowners, and they weren't particularly well developed. But that didn't seem to be a real issue.

The ending -- the poisoning scene -- dragged on a bit much, but it did serve its intended effect, as we heard Whitman (as Johnson) talking the whole time -- still with that fiery charismatic delivery.

Ratings
Me: 8.5
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 10
Joe: 8.5

cinema history class: the bermuda triangle (1978)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

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

Week 3: The Bermuda Triangle (1978)
Directed by Rene Cardona, Jr.

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
After a boat, looking for the remains of Atlantis, sails into the Bermuda Triangle, the passengers start dying in odd but gory ways.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I remember when I was a kid being all curious about (and, to be honest, a bit scared of) the Bermuda Triangle. It was one of those supernatural-type stories that made its way into popular culture, with just enough behind it to make it seem real to me. In fairness, I don't know how long it was that people talked about it. But I distinctly remember reading an article about it at my father's Aunt Emily's house. And I remember Leonard Nimoy -- Mr. Spock himself! -- devoting an episode of In Search of to the triangle. And then, for some reason I didn't hear about it anymore. So it was fun to watch a movie about the triangle. And it was extra fun that this movie portrayed it as some kind of supernatural phenomenon -- without being clear as to the exact nature of the phenomenon.

In this film, the main characters are the Marvin family, who have chartered the boat. Early on, they find a child's doll floating in the ocean. They let Diana, the youngest passenger, have the doll, and she seems to become possessed by it -- predicating (and in some cases causing) the deaths of her shipmates. The best -- and creepiest -- part of this is the fact that, late in the movie, the doll takes on actual human appearances. That whole development is probably the best aspect of the movie. In a way, the film seemed like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone. Sadly, though, we're talking about Twilight Zone from the 1980's instead of from the 1960's. The ambiguous ending, is one of the high points of the film, making it very interesting and giving the audience something to talk about.

But the problem is that it takes too long to get there. They could have easily cut a half hour out of this film without sacrificing anything. There's a whole sequence near the beginning showing World War II era airplanes getting lost in the triangle. It really had nothing to do with the plot except that one of the early reported incidents in the triangle involved planes such as those. And there were a bunch of other things that were thrown in for no obvious plot purpose.

Ratings
Me: 5.5
Bob-O: 8.5
Dave: 9
Ethan: 8.5
Kursat: 6

cinema history class: cyclone (1978)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

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

Week 2: Cyclone (1978)
Directed by Rene Cardona, Jr.

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A freak cyclone in the Caribbean sinks boats and planes alike, leaving a sightseeing boat full of people adrift at sea with its occupants struggling to survive.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
In some very obvious ways, Cyclone seems like a reworking of Survive!, which we saw a week earlier. In both, a bunch of passengers are stuck in the middle of nowhere, presumed dead, with dwindling food, no way of communicating with or getting back to civilization. The obvious difference, of course, is that in Survive! the cast are stuck in the snow in the Andes. In Cyclone, they're stuck in a boat on the open ocean. In both movies, some of the lost passengers go off on their own in search of help. And both movies pander to the baser senses by featuring cannibalism.

That said, there are some very important differences. Survive! was a very tight movie with a very straightforward simple plot and very little inn the way of character development or what I'll call sidetrips. By contrast, Cyclone is a complex mess. The barely-surviving passengers aren't all from one boat. Some had been on an airplane that crashed in the ocean, and some had been on a fishing boat. Somehow they all managed to find their way together onto the sightseeing boat, which was only supposed to be on a three-hour tour. And, unsatisfied with the basic premise, the movie seems to throw the kitchen sink at the victims. All those run-ins with sharks were like butter upon bacon. And the movie tries its darnedest to develop the characters. And yet I couldn't be moved to give a crap about any of them. The woman giving birth on the boat (and the baby)? Whatever. The idiot who thought her dog was as important as the human passengers? Fuck her. And her little dog too.

The attempts at character development and the unneeded extra hardships added extra time to the movie that it could have done without.

Ratings
Me: 6
Bob-O: 7.5
Christina: 8.3
Dave: 9
Ethan: 7
Kursat: 8.5

cinema history class: survive! (1976)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

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

Week 1: Survive! (1976)
Directed by Rene Cardona

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A charter flight crashes in the Andes, and the survivors have to resort to cannibalism to stay alive.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Survive! is brutal in its simplicity. I've seen a bunch of disaster movies -- Earthquake was one of my earliest experiences at a movie theater. And they all manage to work relationships into the narrative. They tell the stories of people dealing with, well, disasters. But they include character development, so we care about the people and experience the pathos. But that's just not so with Survive!. It's not character driven at all -- unless the situation itself is the star (an astute observation that Dave made). At the end of the film, I couldn't have even given the names of any of the characters.

Having said that, I should acknowledge that Keith showed us the English language version of this film. The Spanish language version, which was a half hour longer, probably did include character development. And we did get the faintest hint of that, as we saw the father of one of the airplane passengers pleading with local officials to keep searching. And there was a tiny bit at the end as he waited patiently to see if his son would emerge from the helicopter that was carrying survivors. I don't know if I would have enjoyed the longer version with more character development. In a sense, it wasn't needed. This was the version without the gristle.

A lot of the film was done very well. Watching the plane crash, I almost felt as if I was there with them. The miserable cold feel of the film was captivating.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 8.8
Christina: 9.4
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 9

stoopidstats: another move!

It's been known for a while that the Athletics (baseball team) is going to be moving to Las Vegas for the 2027 season (if not sooner). That gives me something to look forward to -- StoopidStatularly thinking. The move doesn't mean a new franchise, and probably won't mean a new team nickname (the franchise has already moved twice and kept the nickname "Athletics" both times. But the move to Las Vegas promises to make them the first team there, and the first team in the state of Nevada. So that will add a level of interest (for me, anyway) to my annual process.

But this past week, baseball announced that the A's are leaving Oakland after this season. They're not moving to Las Vegas right away, since their stadium won't be ready for 2025. Instead, they'll play three years in Sacramento -- or West Sacramento, depending on which article I believe. This, of course, teases me with a variety of possibilities.

Specifically, how will the team be branded for the three interim years? Assuming they keep the nickname "Athletics," there are a few possible names for the team starting next year. As a disclaimer, let me note that I'm just a guy pulling thoughts out of his ass. I have no insider information.

Oakland Athletics: The team could, of course, keep the "Oakland" branding, which will disappoint me, since it means that nothing will be new until the move to Las Vegas. Which is where we were before last week. I think it's unlikely they'll keep this name. For starters, the Oakland fan will be feeling burned already, and keeping the Oakland branding is unlikely to assuage the bitter feelings and will make Sacramentonians will feel unappreciated and less likely to buy tickets.

Sacramento Athletics or West Sacramento Athletics: These possibilities would probably be the coolest since either one would represent a new location in the team's name. And the location would only be in use for three years (probably between 180 and 270 wins) before being abandoned for Las Vegas. These would have the advantage of creating extra merchandising opportunities as fans could gobble up the short-duration uniforms, caps and other merchandise.

California Athletics or Northern California Athletics: The franchise could go for a broader regional appeal. This would give them the same merchandising opportunities as "Sacramento" or "West Sacramento." If they use "Northern California," it would also represent a new location for my list.

Las Vegas Athletics: This would interest me to some degree, though practically speaking it would simply accelerate the "Las Vegas" moniker by three years. It wouldn't make sense to me, unless the franchise is trying to get started early on building fan loyalty. It would also annoy me because I'd be left in a quandary. If a team is labelled as Las Vegas but plays in California, I'd have to decide whether to have my statistics reflect them as being in California or Las Vegas.

As a side note, they'll be playing for three seasons in a stadium with only 14,000 seats, which is tiny by current Major League baseball standards. Of course, it's well more than enough to hold their current fan base, so I guess it should be fine.

stoopidstats 2023: shifting ranks (win-wise that is)

 This post is way, way way overdue, since the 2024 season has already begun. For those who are interested, the equivalent post (following the 2022 season) is here.

That said, I finally updated my win/loss tables, and the rankings (by total wins) of franchises, locations, states and nicknames. The delay? Well, aside from life getting in the way, there's the fact that baseball-reference.com, which is my source for data has been updating its database. A couple years ago they (I think, following the lead of Major League Baseball) made the decision to include the Negro Leagues within the umbrella of Major League. I have heard lots of arguments for and against this decision, but the bottom line is that I (for stoopidstats' purposes) don't want to be second-guessing my source of data. At any rate, the record-keeping for those leagues left a lot to be desired. The research is ongoing, and the historical record is being revised. With the changes that occurred since the end of the 2022 season, it took me a while to get around to updating my files.

But now I'm done. And here are the changes:

By Franchise

Four teams moved up in rank. Below, I am showing how their win totals changed (along with the analogous changes for the franchises they passed. Notably, the Rangers moved up from 20th to 19th by passing the Mets. This came one year after The Mets moved from 20th to 19th by passing The Rangers. Meanwhile, congratulations to The Dodgers, The Rangers, The Brewers and The Rays!

By Location

Two locations moved up in rank. Below, I am showing how their win totals changed (along with the analogous changes for the locations they passed. Meanwhile, congratulations to Milwaukee and Tampa Bay!

By State (or State-like Entity)

No states moved up or down the ranks in 2023. Yeah, I'm almost disappointed. But it is worth noting that, as of the end of the 2023 season, Texas teams have had a grand total of exactly 4,000 wins.

By Nickname

Three nicknames moved up in rank. While two of those moved up only one place, the third ("The Guardians," in its second season as an official team nickname) moved up fourteen places. It can be expected to move up another nine or so places in 2024, but we'll see. None of the sixteen nicknames that moved down in rank have been in use for decades. The most recent uses of any of them were in 1948 -- The Homestead Grays and The Philadelphia Stars. Meanwhile, congratulations to "The Nationals," "The Rays" and "The Guardians."

cinema history class: nightmare in badham county (1976)

The session: "TV Terrors from the 70s"
Four weeks of made-for-TV horror movies from the 1970s

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

Week 4: Nightmare in Badham County (1976)
Directed by John Llewellyn Moxey

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I wasn't aware of this movie, thogh I think I may have seen part of it on TV in the middle of the night. Back when I was in college.

Plot:
Two college women are taking a roadtrip in the deep south, when they get on the bad side of a crooked (dare I say evil?) sheriff, they end up as slave labor on a prison farm.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's easy to dismiss Nightmare as a mindless exploitation flick. But that would be doing it an injustice. Of course there's a heavy dose of exploitation (especially in the theatrical version, which is what Keith showed us), but the film has a near-perfect mix of action, exploitation and drama, so it almost transcends the genre. 

The one drawback for me is that I had trouble distinguishing between two of the guards, which caused me some confusion. One guard, Dulcie, was somewhat kind while another, Greer, was invariably cruel. Because they both had red hair, I had trouble distinguishing them from each other, so I couldn't understand what the screenplay was attempting to accomplish. Of course, the other guys in the class weren't confused at all, so maybe it's just me.

The cast was full of big names -- Chuck Connors, Tina Louise, Robert Reed, Della Reese, Ralph Bellamy. I'm tempted to make some joke about it being like an episode of The Love Boat, but that wouldn't be fair. These actors turned in really strong performances. It was especially fun seeing Chuck Connors as a bad guy, since he spent so much of his career as a heroic stoic.

There's an unrelentingly gritty and menacing quality to the movie, so anyone who wants a feelgood movie experience would do well to avoid. But it's really a well-done movie for what it is. Overall, this was much better than it had any right to be.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.7
Christina: 9.8
Dave: 9
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10
Kursat: 9.9

cinema history class -- catching up

 I've kind of gotten behind on my writeups of Keith's class. Things have been hectic and I've fallen behind. Behind enough that it doesn't make sense for me to try to create posts for each of the six movies that are missing. But sometimes we in the class use this blog as a reference for what we have seen, so I don't want to just skip these entries.

So, for the sake of completeness, the following are the movies we have seen since my last post.

Session: Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber
Week 3: Crimes of the Black Cat (1972)

Session: Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber
Week 4: The Weekend Murders (1970)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 1: The Night Strangler (1973)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 2: Devil Dog -- The Hound from Hell (1978)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 3: The Last Dinosaur (1977)

cinema history class: the black belly of the tarantula (1971)

The session: "Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber"
Keith's mother-in-law passed away, so this month of giallos is dedicated to her.

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

Week 2: The Black Belly of the Tarantula (1971)
Directed by Paolo Cavara

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I think I'd heard of it, but I'm not sure. All these giallos have poetic titles that reference animals.

Plot:
Women are being stabbed to death, and a conflicted investigator is trying to solve the mystery.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I'm really not a huge giallo fan, but this was a great bit of psychosexual mystery, and a really good (arguably great) movie. Whereas many giallos have confused and confusing endings, this did a good job of tying together the loose ends. There were little touches that I really appreciated, though I probably missed some. I would have totally missed the bit with the lost contact lens if not for the fact that Joe pointed it out -- and he said he missed it the first time he saw the movie.

I have to wonder why there were so many redheaded women. Was it for distraction? Was it because they looked dramatic against drab backgrounds? I wouldn't mind except that so many similar-looking women made the plot confusing.

One thing I found particularly disturbing is the fact that the murder victims were apparently paralyzed but kept conscious before being stabbed -- a particularly cruel touch. But it did serve the purpose of connecting the movie with its title.

But spiders aren't insects, damnit!

Ratings
Me: 9.5
Bob-O: 9
Christina: 9.4
Dave: 9.4
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the bird with the crystal plumage (1970)

The session: "Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber"
Keith's mother-in-law passed away, so this month of giallos is dedicated to her.

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

Week 1: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)
Directed by Daroio Argento

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
This is one of those movies that I was peripherally aware of -- primarily through my association with Keith and this class. But I really knew very little about it beyond the basics.

Plot:
After witnessing a murder, an writer decides to involve himself in the investigation -- with terrible consequences for himself and his lover.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
By way of full disclosure, I should note that I have, sadly, come to realize that I'm not really a big fan of the genre. I can't exactly say why. I remember, back in 2017, The Quad Cinema (in Manhattan's Greenwich Village) was having a Bava festival -- showing the films of Mario Bava. Ethan and I saw half a dozen or so Bava giallos, and I was less than enthralled. It has been suggested that I overloaded myself, seeing too many of the films in a short period, so maybe there's that.

At any rate (and trying to factor out my general disinterest in the giallos), this is a good mystery. There were many twists and turns, and I really had no idea where it was going until the end. There were a lot of red herrings, and I loved the sense of artistic voyeurism. Tony Musante, known for his performances in some great Spaghetti Westerns, turned in a really strong performance, but the real kudos go to Suzy Kendall who played the girlfriend. There's a scene near the end, where she is alone in her apartment trying to keep the murderer from breaking in. That scene is pure adrenaline and suspense, and Kendall made it.

I'm not sure what it says about how movies have trained me that, during the final scene -- almost an epilogue -- I kept expecting something shocking to happen. Maybe the plane would explode, maybe the flight attendant would reveal herself as the murderer. Something. After Carrie and other movies with endings that did the same, it just didn't feel right to me to have the movie end with a clear ending.

I'd like to note something about giallos. They tend to have poetic, intriguing titles that are peripherally related to the plot, but that don't really tell you what the movie is about. This is a good example -- the title is a reference to a specific -- and important -- element of the plot. But it doesn't really give much away. Unlike, say, Slumber Party Massacre, the tile of which kind of tells the audience exactly what to expect.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9.6
Christina: 9.6
Dave: 9.7
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the wild bunch (1969)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

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

Week 4: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Directed by Sam Peckinpah

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I knew of this film and its reputation for being very violent and very good. But I knew nothing about the plot. I think I had imagined it to be something like The Magnificent Seven. I was wrong about that

Plot:
As the old West is making way for the new, an aging gang, used to the old ways, tries to pull off one last glorious robbery.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Wild Bunch is, in one important way, the odd man out in our annual month devoted to Spaghetti Westerns: It's an American film, and therefore not a Spaghetti Western. I actually asked Keith about his choice when he first told us what he would show. And his explanation was that this movie, despite being American, owes a lot to Spaghetti Westerns. In fact, he told me, Sam Peckinpah said he never would have made The Wild Bunch if not for Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Having gotten that explanation from Keith, I was expecting to see something that felt like a Spaghetti Western. But I didn't get that. The fact is that The Wild Bunch feels very much like an American Western. I never would have mistaken it for its Italian-made relatives. What it does owe to them, however, is the extreme violence. The violence isn't brutal the way it is in the Italians' films. The torture that we expect from Corbucci and Leone is absent -- or at least largely so. And yet the violence itself -- most of it through repeated gun battles -- seems to be unending. There's a lot more of it than the Italian films had.

There is definitely a theme to this film. We have a bunch of men coming to terms with their own obsolescence. There are frequent references to the fact that the world is changing. The heroes as such, are thieves and killers. But they stick to a code of honor and the story is told from their perspective. And the audience (or at least I) can't help but sympathize with them and hope that, if they can't stop the world, they can at least leave it on their own terms. And this movie, making its point about the changing world, is the perfect one to close the session on, because the civilizing of the west was a major theme in all the movies Keith showed this session.

A great cast makes this a really great movie.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.8
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 9.5

cinema history class: navajo joe (1966)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

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

Week 3: Navajo Joe (1966)
Directed by Sergio Corbucci

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I'd never seen this film, though I was aware of it and the fact that it starred Burt Reynolds.

Plot:
In the South, a lone Indian (well, biracial, half Indian/half White) seeks revenge on the white gang who killed his wife.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
One of the unusual things about Navajo Joe, as far as Spaghetti Westerns go (and judging from my experience), is that it involved Indians. For some reason, the Italians behind Spaghetti Westerns generally uninterested in that element of the history of the American West, and Indians are generally not a theme. But here the titular character is half Indian. But, for all intents and purposes, he's fully Indian.

The other thing that I found odd is that there's actually a good guy (that being the titular Navajo Joe). My line is that,  American Westerns that have good guys and bad guys, Spaghetti Westerns have bad guys and worse guys. The heroes are morally ambiguous at best. But in Navajo Joe, Joe is an unambiguously good character. I don't like that. One of the things I like about Spaghetti Westerns is the fact that the heroes are really anti-heroes. I also like that in TV shows -- The Americans, Boardwalk Empire, and The Sopranos, to name a few.

Burt Reynolds does a good job showing off his athleticism, getting into and out of tight spots. And it's fun to watch him outsmarting the rest of the characters (and the other characters outsmarting each other and themselves). And I especially liked the ambiguous ending.

The film does suffer from having too low a budget. I noted in class that Corbucci never did get the great epic feel that Leone managed to put into so many of his films, Keith explained that that was a function of him being on tighter budgets. I have to wonder what he could have done with more money

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9
Dave: 9.3
Ethan: 7

cinema history class: duck, you sucker! (1971)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

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

Week 2: Duck, You Sucker! (1971)
Directed by Sergio Leone

My Impressions Going In:
I'd seen his film a few times before and thought very highly of it..

Plot:
In rural Mexico, a thief and a revolutionary join forces in pursuit of their goals.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Where Once Upon a Time in the West (Leone's prior film, and the movie we saw a week before this), showed us the taming of the West, Duck You Sucker (one of the film's alternate names is Once Upon a Time...the Revolution) went a step further  into modernity. Set during the Mexican Revolution, we see motorcycles, trucks, and what looks like a distant cousin of a military tank. And yet, with the guns, horses and rural settings, it still maintains its identity as a Western. In fact, the opening sequence depicting Juan and his sons robbing a stagecoach clearly declares he film's identity as a Western. But, as Spaghetti Westerns go, there's a distinct maturity to it. So many of the Spaghetti Westerns center on a protagonist (and likely an antagonist as well) with superhuman gunslinging abilities. So much so that many of the movies have a comic book quality. That's absent here. Instead of deadly accuracy, we see the protagonists use machine guns and explosives to cut their enemies down.

In many ways, Duck is also a classic buddy film. Two guys meet as antagonists. But there's enough overlap in their goals that they find themselves working together, often against their better judgement. They are supremely mismatched -- Juan the dirt poor thief who is trying to support his numerous kids (and dreaming of a big score) is working with John, an erudite Irish revolutionary who finds himself fighting the Mexican revolution after becoming a fugitive in his native Ireland. And somehow they develop a grudging respect for each other.

It all wraps itself up into an amusing, if not particularly deep story.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.8
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 9.5
Joe: 10