The Hearts of Age (1934)

In 1938, a young actor and theater director named Orson Welles earned notoriety and recognition when his radio play version of H. G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds" was broad-casted, shocking the nation and prompting many studios to notice Welles' talent. This success would take Welles to Hollywood where in 1941, he would direct what is now considered by many critics as the best movie ever made, the influential classic "Citizen Kane". At the age of 26, Welles had already made the movie of his lifetime, and was about to begin a career that despite the many troubles he found (mainly studio interference), managed to produce excellent results. However, "Citizen Kane" wasn't the first time this prodigy had made a movie, as before "Kane" the young Welles made 2 short films that helped him to experiment with the medium. The first one was "The Hearts of Age", a film he did when he was only 19.

"The Hearts of Age" is a surrealist film based on ideas about old age, decrepitude and death. Virginia Nicholson plays an Old Woman, sitting on a bell on the top of a house while a black servant (Paul Edgerton) rings the bell. She seems to enjoy the feeling of the bell moving with her on top as she watches people coming by, and gets angered whenever her servant stops to rest a bit. Soon, a sinister man (Orson Welles) appears, acting exaggeratedly polite to her, and becoming interested in her servant. Soon she discovers that the sinister man is Death, as he begins to do his job with some of the people she has seen. The Lady doesn't seem to care much until he decides to go after her servant, whose death would mean that the bell would stop moving. As she watches how his servant dies, she discovers that she is also on Death's list.

Cryptic and strange, this 8 minutes short film was written by Welles in an apparent attempt to satirize the surrealist movies of Jean Cocteau, or at least that's what he said about it many years later. It certainly follows the style and structure (or lack of one) of the works of surrealists (like Buñuel for example), as the plot is developed in a dreamlike fashion, often illogical and filled with metaphors about the main theme. In this case, theme is mortality, the nature of death and how people reacts to it. The movie also touches the subject of the hypocrisy of the attitudes towards black people that people of his time used to have. While this may sound like a honest attempt to satirize what Welles sees as the pretentiousness of surrealist artists, it never truly achieves that purpose and in the end it feels more pretentious and over-the-top as the movies is attempting to parody.

While of course nowhere near the movies he would make later in his career, "The Hearts of Age" does show two interesting traits that would later become trademarks of Welles' style. First, a highly creative camera-work, which even in this experimental stage already shows that Welles understands the limitless possibilities of cinema and its value to tell stories visually. The second of those traits is his stylish use of editing (sadly something he wouldn't be able to show in many of his movies), which in this films still shows a lot of influence from Soviet montage theory, but that later would evolve into the perfect complement for his cinematography. Something that can also be seen in this short film is that even at the age of 19, Welles already knew what to get from his actors, and had the skill to direct them properly into delivering what he wanted.

Considering the style of the short, this last thing may sound insignificant, but one can't deny that while certainly the movie is nothing more than a mere amateurish experiment, it shows that Welles truly had a prodigious talent despite the lack of a properly written script. The cast is good in their roles, although as written above, the main weakness in in the script. It's not that it's bad (it actually handles symbolism in a remarkable way), it's just that it seems to take itself too seriously for its own sake that it ends up making the film a but boring despite the short runtime. Welles himself considered the movie more an experiment on film-making than an actual film, and watching the results, it's hard to disagree with him, as the technical aspects are far more interesting than the artistic merit of "The Hearts of Age".

Wheter he truly intended to make fun of surrealism or actually failed in an attempt of making surreal art, it is truly an impossible thing to know for sure; but what we do know is that this first movie marked the beginning of Welles' interest in film-making as an extension for his work at the theater. An interest that would transform into an obsession that would become the force behind some of the most significant films in the history of cinema. "The Hearts of Age" is not exactly something amazing, but given its historical importance, it is a required viewing for anyone remotely interested in the career of one of the most important men in film-making: Orson Welles. Weak, confusing and a tad pretentious, "The Hearts of Age" is the proof that even giants started small.

6/10

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

In the late 70s, friends George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were two rising filmmakers enjoying the success of their recently released films and dreaming about future projects. It is said that while on vacations, Spielberg told Lucas about his desire of making an adventure film, and then Lucas told him about an idea he had been developing for a while: a story about an adventurer in the style of the 30s serial films that he and Spielberg enjoyed so much. 1981's successful "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was the result of that conversation, and the beginning of the adventures of archaeologist Indiana Jones (played by Harrison Ford), whom 9 years and two sequels later would become a modern icon of the adventure genre. 19 years after the last sequel (1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"), the year 2008 finds Spielberg, Lucas and Ford returning to the legendary explorer for a new adventure in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

Set in 1957, the story begins with Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and his partner Mac (Ray Winstone) captured by the Soviets and forced to led them to the supposed remains of an extraterrestrial creature located in a military base in the Nevada desert. Betrayed by Mac, Jones manages to escape but fails to stop the Soviets from taking the remains. Because of this incident, Jones finds himself under FBI investigation and so is forced to quit from his position at Marshall College. After resigning from his job, Jones meets Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a young biker who informs him that an old colleague, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), has disappeared after discovering a crystal skull near the Nazca lines in Peru. Chased by the Soviets, Jones and Williams travel to Peru looking for Oxley, only to discover that after being locked on a mental asylum, Oxley has been kidnapped by the Soviets, who seem very interested in the Professor's discovery.

After many, many years of development (this sequel had been in preproduction several times since 1989), several scriptwriters hired and fired, as well as countless drafts and plot ideas developed, writer David Koepp was the man responsible for the final screenplay for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", adapting it from a story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson. Remaining in tone with the previous films in the series, this sequel keeps that mix of adventure, fantasy, romance and comedy that has been essential part of the Indiana Jones franchise since the beginning. Of course, things have changed after 19 years and the familiar characters reflect a significant growth but at their core, they remain faithful to the past and their personalities. Also, since the movie is set in the 50s, themes and elements from 50s B-Movies have been introduced, making this sequel a homage to that era just like the previous films payed tribute to the 30s serials.

As expected from director Steven Spielberg, the film is visually impressive and of excellent quality on the technical area. There's a notable conscious effort by Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski for recapturing the style of the previous films (which by the way, had Douglas Slocombe in charge of cinematography) in terms of look and overall atmosphere; and to a certain extent they succeed, as while of course there are plenty of modern special effects and computer generated images employed, for the most part the movie still has that trademark "Indiana Jones feel" (complete with John William's score) at least on the visual side. But still, something special seems missing from the whole thing, something youthful, and I'm not dissing the cast's age (Ford truly does an impressive job for his age), I'm talking about Spielberg himself, whom while owner of a more mature and perfected style, feels less adventurous, less willing to take risks and at times even unable to recapture that spark that existed on his younger style.

It was a nice surprise to see that almost 20 years after the last time he wore the fedora, Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones and is not afraid of proving it. The role still fits him like a glove, and Ford easily brings back the persona of the iconic adventurer he made a legend. And even nicer surprise was to see old timer Karen Allen returning for another shot and giving her best, becoming one of the highlights of the film (despite having a tragically underdeveloped character). Shia LaBeouf is better than expected as Jones' new partner Mutt Williams, delivering an effective performance and having very good chemistry with Ford. Cate Blanchett plays the film's villain, Dr. Irina Spalko, and while she has lots of fun and tries to make the most out of her role, she can't escape from the poor, stereotypical character she was given. The same happens to Ray Winstone and John Hurt, although at least Winstone fares a bit better than Blanchett as Jones' former sidekick Mac.

Well, as written above, Spielberg does his best to recapture the old spirit, but while visually he succeeds and this film looks exactly as if it had been done right after "The Last Crusade", the feeling is somehow not the same. The problem is not a lack of adventure scenes (there are plenty of them), but a lack of reality in them. Of course, the Indiana Jones films have never been serious or realist, as they have always had a the tongue firmly in cheek, but there was always a sense of danger, of humanity, that made them believable. That's missing here, as one never gets the feeling that the hero "might not make it this time", which was instrumental part in making Jones a human, believable character in the past films. But well, that's not the worst of the film's flaws, it's real problem is that the script is just not that good. Don't get me wrong, it's far better than most adventure films (and I'm not asking for realism), but in its attempt for comedy it sometimes gets absurd, and several characters are so poorly developed that it hurts (mainly the villains).

It's hard (probably impossible) to judge "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" without comparing it to the previous films in the series, and given the 19 years of separation between this one and the previous ones, a certain bit of nostalgia plays a big role when doing it. So I guess that, avoiding comparisons, the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones saga is quite a good film on its own right. It has lots of flaws, most of them the fault of its poorly constructed script (it seems that after firing writer Frank Darabont, Koepp and Lucas felt rushed to finish it), but it's still an entertaining film. It's not that the film is bad, it's definitely not, but it's just not up to what was expected from Indiana Jones.

7/10

The Face at the Window (1939) @ Cult Reviews

Well, I'm sorry if I have not been able to post new reviews lately, but once again work and school have conspired to steal my time. However, I have been able to collaborate on a new site that a couple of good friends have set up. The site is Cult Reviews and it's dedicated to, well, as it's name may suggest, cult films, mainly of the horror genre, but also those classic sci-fi films, fantasy movies, Spaghetti Westerns, Kaiju monsters, good ol' exploitation (of every variety), and well, just about any other weird and bizarre film that we may decide.

As written above, I was invited to collaborate there too, so some reviews (more apropriate to their site) may turn up there instead of here. So far two have been published there, one for George King's masterful 1939's film, "The Face at the Window" (starring Tod Slaughter!) and another for Richard Stanley's mix of Western and Horror, "Dust Devil" (this one previously published here some months ago).

So, if things here at W-Cinema seem slow at the moment, check out Cult Reviews in the mean time, I'm sure there may be things you'll love, things you'll hate, and things that you weren't even aware that existed on film. And yes, this was just another tiny bit of shameless self-promotion. But you know you like it.



Buy "The Face at the Window" (1939)

Neverwas (2005)

Ever since the adaptation to film of the "Harry Potter" book series, and most importantly, of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic "The Lord of Rings" trilogy, the fantasy genre has experienced a very well deserved rise in popularity and a come back to the silver screen. The fact that modern special effects technology allows to make those fantasy worlds to come alive with greater ease and more realism than in the past is definitely another reason for this return to the spotlight, which has resulted in many fantasy films being released on cinema, video and television. Some of those films have been very good or have enjoyed great success, while others have been complete disasters (2006's "Eragon" for example), but in general the genre has proved to be back in form and ready to rumble. Considering that, it would be easy to assume that Joshua Michael Stern's "Neverwas" is one more of the countless fantasy films released these days, but even when the fantasy genre plays a big role in this modest film, "Neverwas" is a lot more than that.

"Neverwas" is the story of Zach Riley (Aaron Eckhart) a promising psychiatrist who decides to leave his academic career and return to his hometown, in order to work at the institution where his deceased father, T.L. Pierson (Nick Nolte), lived years ago. Pierson was a famous novelist, creator of the extremely popular fantasy book series "Neverwas", a children's book about a magical land of the same name. However, due to his mental problems, Pierson's relationship with Zach wasn't really the best. To Zach, working in the institution is something very personal to him, as he tries to understand his father and his problems, however, nothing will prepare him for his meeting with Gabriel Finch (Ian McKellen), a schizophrenic old man who truly believes that he comes from "Neverwas", that he is the rightful king of the land, and that Zach is the only one able to help him return to his kingdom. Finch's insanity touches a nerve in Zach, as he begins to wonder what truth is hidden in this fantasy.

Written by director Joshua Michael Stern, "Neverwas" is a movie that basically tells a story that's been told a lot of times (a man coming to terms with the memory of his late father), but at the same time is the story of a man discovering fantasy again through the eyes of someone who seems to live it every second of his life. In his story, Stern takes this two main subjects and using fantasy literature as the background he creates a moving tale that seems to give an odd spin to the fantasy genre, as while in many fantasy stories, children enter magical fantasy worlds (real or not) to escape from the horrors of real life, the main character in "Neverwas" is a grown up man who has been escaping from fantasy as a whole as he considers it to be closely linked to his father and his world. Stern handles the mystery of his story in a great way, as like Zach, one keeps the whole movie wondering if the world of Neverwas that the quixotic eyes of Gabriel Finch see is real or not.

In this his debut as a director, Joshua Michael Stern has created a charming tale of discovery that while not exactly a revelation or a landmark in film-making, is simply a nicely done drama that pulls all the right strings without misses a note. While Stern's visual style is young, kind of typical and still heavily influenced by TV movies (where his career as a writer started), there's a lot of creativity in the creation of the film's visual design, as with the great aid of cinematographer Michael Grady, Stern reflects in his movie the blurry and subtle line between dramatic realism and magical fantasy that his story handles. Philip Glass's score is another element that adds power to this mix, as Stern gives good use to it through the film. Despite dealing with fantasy elements, "Neverwas" is first and foremost, a character study, so director Stern lets his cast to become the main focus of the film, apparently aware that the real strength of the story is in the plot and the characters.

And that makes the performances of the cast of big importance, as a great deal of the weight of the film is over their backs. As Zach Riley, Aaron Eckhart is quite good and manages to carry the film well, although sadly he is often overshadowed by his cast-mates, particularly Ian McKellen and a surprising Brittany Murphy. Sir Ian McKellen completely steals the show as Gabriel Finch, a man who may or may not be completely delusional, as he makes quite a tender performance out of his character. As Maggie Blake, Brittany Murphy is remarkably well, and as written above, tends to overshadow Eckhart despite not being the main character of the film. Refreshingly, she makes believable and natural what could had been an unidimensional role. As Zach's father, Nick Nolte has a brief but substantial role in the film, although nothing really impressive. On the other hand, Jessica Lange and William Hurt have very small roles but they showcase their talents effectively in them.

For some reason, "Neverwas" didn't receive a proper theatrical release, ending as a straight to DVD film in what's probably another case of bad merchandising. Anyways, while this is not exactly a masterpiece of film-making, this little gem is quite an interesting take on the fantasy genre. Contrary to what its poster may suggest, "Neverwas" is not a fantasy film in the vein of "Harry Potter", but a fantasy about those who create fantasies. To expect the opposite is probably the best way to be disappointed with it, and that kind of expectation is definitely the film's worst enemy. With more experience, filmmaker Joshua Michael Stern may have had better results but considering his limitations, "Neverwas" is a very good way to start a career. Granted, he falls on many of the typical melodramatic clichés of the this kind of story, and a couple of times the story gets a bit too far fetched for its own right, but overall "Neverwas" is a fine film that definitely deserved better than what it got.

While not technically a typical fantasy film, "Neverwas" is definitely an excellent film for fans of the genre, as it explores the worlds of those who craft the fantasy stories we love to read and experience on film. In a way, this story has been told many times in the past, but "Neverwas" manages to feel fresh and even original at telling it. It may not be the most amazing movie of its kind, but it's a charming hidden treasure that definitely delivers a great story and nicely serves to have a good time. Hopefully, director Joshua Michael Stern will have better luck in his future projects and more will be seen coming from his side because if "Neverwas" is any indication of where he's going, it seems that there's work to do, but there's also the talent to do it.

7/10

Buy "Neverwas" (2005)

Morricone live

I had the opportunity of experiencing the legendary Ennio Morricone directing several of his classic musical masterpieces done for film. He visited my country (Mexico) last May and on the 29th he came to my city. Only one word could describe the show: "glorious". Or at least it was for me. Naturally, I nearly cried when "The Ecstasy of Gold", composed for Sergio Leone's 1966 classic "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" was played (and he played it one more time as an encore!), although I must admit that the best part was when the orchestra played music from "The Mission".

Bravo maestro! Glorious!

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

This review was originally published in my good friend Paxton's blog the 4th of November of 2007 (original post, written in spanish, here), as I was invited to collaborate with a review of this movie for his blog. Gracias amigo!
If you know spanish, check out his blog. Honestly, it's pretty cool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must admit that when in 1999 rock musician Robert Cummings (better known as Rob Zombie) announced that he would begin the production of a horror film named "House of 1000 Corpses", I wasn't that thrilled about the project. Zombie had already demonstrated a great talent for visual design (creating the whole concept of his band, "White Zombie"), even directing several musical videos o great quality (including the psychedelic dream in "Beavis and Butt-Head Do America"), but even when his dedication to the genre was noticeable, I still wasn't expecting the results he got. "House of 1000 Corpses" was released 4 years after it was first announced, but it truly was worth the wait, as while it wasn't really anything new or original, his hallucinating homage to "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was all around a very entertaining film. 2 years later, Zombie went back to his characters, the Firefly family, in a sequel called "The Devil's Rejects", only this time things will be a little bloodier.

"The Devil's Rejects" takes place 6 months after the events depicted in "House of 1000 Corpses", and all begins with a huge police team surrounding the Firefly house with the firm intention of stopping their crimes. Sheriff John Quincy Wydell (William Forsythe) is on charge and he has sworn to stop the Fireflys in revenge for the murder of his brother. A brutal shooting takes place in which Rufus Firefly (Tyler Mane) gets killed and Mother Firefly (Leslie Easterbrook) is captured, while Otis (Bill Moseley) and Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie) manage to escape alive. The two fugitives look for help and call Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig), whom is actually Baby's father and an old friend of the family. Together, the three of them will try to escape the wrath of Sheriff Wydell, to whom rage and hate begin to turn him into someone each time more brutal in his hunt for the Firefly.

Even when "The Devil's Rejects" is a direct sequel to "House of 1000 Corpses", there's a severe change in the tone in which Rob Zombie has written his film this time. If "Corpses" employed a constant degree of black humor in its kitsch homage to 70s cinema, "The Devil's Rejects" takes its homage to the legendary grind-house cinema in a more serious way, following the old school style of violent exploitation to the letter. As a director, Zombie has grown, and while it can't be said that "The Devil's Rejects" is the most original film in the world, his way of telling this brutal story of bullets and blood is quite a nostalgic return to the world of the violent B-movies that filled cinemas and drive-ins in the time of filmmakers like Lewis, Hooper, Fulci o Franco. Actually, the change from surreal black comedy to serious exploitation is really beneficial for the story, because "The Devil's Rejects" feels like a more mature and prepared film.

Still, this change doesn't mean that Zombie has delivered a completely serious dramatic film, as there is humor in "The Devil's Rejects", however, it's of a very black kind, and the tone in general is a lot darker than the one in "Corpses", with the Firefly family at their most violent and a Sheriff Wydell whose acts bring to mind that old quote from Nietzsche: "Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too" . And yet, "The Devil's Rejects" is not a story of "good people versus evil people" despite what the plot might suggest, as just as director Sam Peckinpah would do (although not as effective, I must say), Zombie shows us the human side of both sides, and in an almost cruel way, makes us to question the sympathy one would have for characters as cruel and inhuman as the Fireflys or Sheriff Wydell, the former with an extreme charm despite their foul acts, and the latter with a very nasty personality despite of the nobility of his cause.

And this is perhaps what is both the strongest and weakest part in "The Devil's Rejects", as while Zombie manages to skillfully manipulate the mixed emotions that his characters provoke, at several times he seems to be deeply enamored with his villains, something that takes him in several times to anti-climatic moments in which, given Otis and Baby's luck, one wonders if to Zombie it is OK to commit atrocities as long as one looks cool while doing them. But even if Zombie made the mistake of getting a bit too carried away in his attempt to humanize his gang of mass murderers, he also must receive credit for the things he got right, and personally I think that one of those is his development of the rest of his characters, (particularly in Capitán Spaulding and Mother Firefly), which in all honesty, is very good and truly shows that Zombie has improved in his skill to create complex (and relatively realist) characters.

Naturally, the acting plays a fundamental role in the result of a film, and for the most part, the cast makes a great job in this case. Sid Haig definitely steals the whole show in his role as Captain Spaulding, creating what surprisingly is the most human character in the movie. William Forsythe is excellent as Sheriff Wydell, but the biggest surprise is Leslie Easterbrook (the unforgettable Debbie Callahan in the "Police Academy" film series) as Mother Firefly, giving the character a power that it wouldn't have if it had been played again by Karen Black. Personally, I can't understand what's of amazing in Sheri Moon Zombie (Rob's wife), as she only does what's necessary to get the job done without anything outstanding, and Moseley is almost on the same situation, although he does deliver great acting in a couple of excellent scenes. By the way, legendary horror icons Ken Foree and Michael Berryman show up in two very funny and bizarre roles.

Even when "The Devil's Rejects" is not exactly a perfect movie, it does result being a very good dose of violent action and horror, old school style, in a way that had not been seen in years in American "mainstream" cinema. As a tribute to the violent psychothrinic film-making of the decade of the seventies, "The Devil's Rejects" is really a lot more than what was expected, and proof that Zombie's success with "Corpses" was not a lucky strike and that maybe he might give us a very good surprise in the time to come.

8/10
-------------------------------

Black Christmas (1974)

While the horror genre is quite broad and its themes range from the most extreme fantasy to the harshest realism, most of the times when someone thinks about the horror genre, the very first idea that comes to mind is the slasher film: a masked psycho on the loose stalking a group of dumb teenagers and killing them one by one. And the reason for this is that being a somewhat simple and popular concept to produce, a lot of slasher films have been done since the genre's rise to popularity in the 80s, the "Golden Age" of the "Friday the 13th", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Halloween" series. In fact, It would be John Carpenter's "Halloween" what brought the genre to the spotlight in 1978 and started the "slasher film craze", making many to consider it the very first film of its kind, but even when it helped to popularize the concept and set the standard for the films to come, the most likely candidate for being the real first slasher is a Canadian film done 4 years before "Halloween": Bob Clark's "Black Christmas".

Set in a Canadian sorority house, "Black Christmas" begins when the sorority girls are preparing to leave for the Christmas break. On their last night before vacations, they have been receiving obscene phone calls from an anonymous guy whom they nickname "The Moaner". Nobody takes seriously these calls, thinking the guys is just a pervert and continue with their packing, but the phone calls begin to get more and more disturbing each time. Everything gets worrying when one of them, Clare Harrison (Lynne Griffin), disappears after going upstairs to finish her packing. The next day, the other girls join Clare's father (James Edmond) and contact the police, but nobody seems to be really concerned about the mystery. However, the morbid phone calls continue and soon another girl disappears. For Jessica (Olivia Hussey), Barbie (Margot Kidder) and Phyllis (Andrea Martin), the remaining girls at the sorority house, it'll be a Christmas break they'll never forget.

"Black Christmas" was the brainchild of Canadian writer Roy Moore, whom taking inspiration from several real crime stories, came up with an idea that seems to be the direct descendant of Agatha Christie's famous play, "And Then There Were None", as it is essentially a murder mystery tale taken to the modern urban landscape. From the screenplay we get many of what now are considered pillars of the slasher sub-genre, like the mainly female cast, lead by a strong woman who must overcome her fears and attempt to face and discover the identity of the killer in order to survive the night. However, one thing that "Black Christmas" has that many of the films it influenced tragically lack is the way it develops its characters: they feel very real and one truly begins to care about them. Another highlight of the screenplay is the good dose of black comedy included in the story, as like Hitchcock would do, it breaks the tension with great timing, and most importantly, it never feels out of place.

However, while definitely the screenplay set some of the basics for the sub-genre, it was Bob Clark's execution of it what made this thriller different and ultimately gave birth to the slasher film. The most striking feature of the film is the way Clark handles the suspense through the movie, as while "Black Christmas" does have shocking scares of great impact, it is often thanks to the heavy atmosphere of suspense that such scares work that perfectly, even after repeated viewings (something that not many slashers can do that well). It's remarkable the great use Clark gives to his setting for creating this atmosphere, as by having most of the movie set in the sorority house at night, he manages to convey effectively the feelings of claustrophobia and paranoia that slowly begin to make prey of the characters. Clark's use of the camera is also essential for this, and his use of the killer's point of view truly enhances the idea that the menace is constant (a lesson John Carpenter would explore further in his "Halloween").

The acting is of excellent quality, as the three main actresses appear very natural in their roles as sorority girls. While their characters aren't really of Shakesperean proportions, the screenplay allows them the freedom to develop their roles at will and they definitely do, making them more than the stereotypes they may have represented. Olivia Hussey is particularly good as Jessica, conveying a mixture of innocence and strong will that would later become a trademark of her kind of character. Margot Kidder is also excellent as Barbie, and she has several of the film's best moments, as well as Marian Waldman, whom playing the sorority house's owner, Mrs. Mac, and provides many of the comedy moments of the movie. I wasn't as excited about Andrea Martin's performance, but she is not really bad, just not that impressive and a bit less developed. Finally, John Saxon completes the cast as Lieutenant Kenneth Fuller, the man who'll try to find the killer before another girl gets murdered.

Besides "Halloween", many other films have been called "the original slasher", including Hitchcock's "Psycho", Bava's "Reazione a Catena" ("Twitch of the Dead Nerve" or "Bay Blood") and Hooper's "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"; however, I personally find "Black Christmas" to be the movie that for the first time combines the elements of those previous films that originate what is at the same time the most loved and hated sub-genre of horror. And sadly, that's not only its blessing, but also its curse, as for being the originator of a highly formulaic style of storytelling, at this point in history "Black Christmas" may appear clichéd and slow at first sight, specially when compared to the postmodern approach of Craven's "Scream". With this in mind, one may be tempted to think that "Black Christmas"'s status as a classic comes just for being the first of its kind, but as written above, this is not the case, as despite its flaws, Clark's nightmarish murder mystery still delivers the goods in great measure.

Not without a reason, the "slasher film" has been heavily criticized since its conception; whether for its simplicity, for its formulaic nature, and even for its supposed misogyny (whereas an argument could be made for it being one of the first genres where female empowerment was shown as well!). However, and like every other film genre, it has produced its fair share of gems that are not only great slasher films, but great horror movies in general, and Bob Clark's "Black Christmas", the very first of them, is one of those great films. I must admit that I'm not the biggest fan of slasher films, and that I may have criticize them more than they deserve, but I must say that "Black Christmas" is truly a film that lives up to its reputation and really deserves to be checked out. Like "Halloween" (which could be its counterpart), it is more than a slasher film, it's an experience.

8/10
-------------------------------

A belated celebration...

Apparently, the complications of work, school and life made me forget a date that should be important for W-Cinema, it's very first anniversary! It was on May 9th of 2007 when the first review was posted and the place was officially inaugurated. That first review was for Alfred Hitchcock's early classic, "The Man Who Knew Too Much", a movie I enjoyed quite a lot and that I consider superior to the 50s remake (I know Hitch himself would disagree with me, but what can I say? I find it to have more fun).

In those early months my only compromise was at work, so having enough time to write like crazy the result were quite a lot of reviews being posted in those days. Now, with the constant preoccupation of studying a postgraduate course, plus a new job where Internet is forbidden, it's sometimes difficult to keep writing the way I used to. Hopefully, things will change for the better, and this place will be as lively as it was during its first months of existence.

Many things have happened in this first year, including the publication of "Horror 101", a book in which I was invited to collaborate (yes, more shameless self-promotion :P), and my discovery of the films of John Ford. Also, I have met great people thanks to this place, people who share the same passion for writing about cinema and who have become the "regulars" (or perhaps I should say, the only readers) of W-Cinema. I must admit I was shocked when I found that Mr. Diez Martínez, an excellent film critic from my country (if you can read Spanish, you have to check out his blog), read me, and my shock was bigger when he posted. Thank you, I must say that admire your writing quite a lot.

Well, this is getting a bit too sappy for my taste, so let's get back to business, and, while I wish I could celebrate this with a review (although I have a surprise which hopefully will be announced in the following weeks), for the moment I'll just celebrate it with one of my favorite shots of all time. See you soon!

Iron Man (2008)

In the early 60s, writer Stan Lee was assigned to create new superhero stories for Marvel Comics, at a time when a renewed interest in superheroes was on the rise. Together with talented artists like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, Lee revolutionized the superhero genre with flawed, more human and somewhat realistic characters, that despite having extraordinary powers were still plagued by everyday problems. With this fresh style, Lee and his team created most of Marvel Comics' most famous icons, such as Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four and the X-Men, and transformed the company into an industry giant. Ever since 2000, many of the superheroes Lee created for Marvel in the 60s have made the jump to the silver screen, reaching even more audiences than before as some have become successful franchises. In 2008, Iron-Man, another of Lee's projects (developed by Larry Lieber, Kirby and artist Don Heck), joins the list of superhero adaptations in a movie directed by Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role.

"Iron Man" is the story of wealthy industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) whom is the head of the biggest developer of weapons in the world. Despite being a genius, Stark is an irresponsible playboy who enjoys a life of excess and leisure, until one day, after demonstrating his new weapons in Afghanistan, he is kidnapped by a terrorist organization who forces him to work for them. During the attack, Stark is wounded by a missile, and while in captivity, he and another captured scientist, Yinsen (Shaun Toub), create a device to save his life. With Yinsen's assistance, Stark takes his technology further and creates a full body armor in order to escape from the terrorists. After returning to the U.S., Stark realizes that just like he has used his genius to create technology used to destroy, he can also use it to protect, so he decides to improve his armor and use it to fight for a good cause. But the Iron-Man won't have it easy.

After spending many years in development, "Iron Man" was finally written by two teams of writers, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby on one side, and Art Marcum and Matt Holloway on the other, with director Favreau combining both. As expected, the movie is basically the story of the origin of Iron Man as a superhero, introducing the main characters, the villains, and the main themes; however, it must be noticed that Favreau remained as faithful to the source as possible while at the same time keeping everything easy to understand to people unfamiliar with the comic book. While hardly an original story, the screenplay is very well balanced, with the obvious emphasis on action scenes but without forgetting to develop the characters. This is specially important in Iron Man, as Tony Stark is not exactly a simple superhero character, as his personality is quite complex and atypical. An example of this is the good dose of black comedy that comes thanks to the character's cynicism.

While he has done two relatively good films in the past, director Jon Favreau is definitely not the person one imagines directing a big budget comic book adaptation like this one, specially when one considers that he is probably better known as an actor than as a director. But against all odds, Favreau makes what's probably one of the most enjoyable superhero movies of the last years, and even when in great measure this is possible thanks to the very solid screenplay and the inspired casting of Downey Jr., it is commendable the way Favreau lets the movie flow without losing control of it. But even when his directing style is hardly original (I would even say it's formulaic), Favreau seems to know how to hit the right notes, and while following the pattern of the superhero film to the letter, he makes a movie that feels all around like fresh and fun retelling of the origin of a classic hero. The realistic style he employs in the film truly helps it to form an identity of its own.

As written above, it is definitely Robert Downey Jr. whom is the main highlight of the film, as his performance as the egocentric genius truly carries the film thanks to Downey's great talent and charm. It is always difficult to have someone who's basically a jerk as main character, but Downey Jr. makes him likable, and maybe most importantly, very realistic, as while naturally Stark begins to change his priorities, he never loses his personalities as he becomes more heroic. As Obadiah Stan, Stark's second-in-command at Stark Industries, Jeff Bridges is simply excellent, creating a very human portrait of the corruption in business from what could had easily been just a two dimensional caricature. Gwyneth Paltrow appears as Pepper Potts, Stark's main assistant, and while not really bad, her performance is not one of her best, although to be fair, her character doesn't receive as much exposure as Stark, and exactly the same could be said of Terrence Howard, who plays Stark's best friend, Jim Rhodes.

The rest of the cast ranges from good to truly excellent (Shaun Toub), making this cast one of the best in recent superhero films. Still, since the focus is completely on Downey Jr. the screen time of the rest of the cast is pretty short, and there are couple of characters whom may seem pointless (Leslie Bibb's character for example). However, this is not completely a bad thing, as it allows the audience to know the heroic industrialist more and, like any good origins story, it introduces the world of the film. The problem of this is that the film feels pretty formulaic at several parts of the film, as it includes every typical scene from this kind of stories; but as written above, Favreau makes those clichés work by giving them a slight spin using Stark's irresponsible personality. Finally, I must say that the special effects team did an excellent job at combining practical effects with digital ones, as sometimes the mix is imperceptible, making it one of the best looking films of 2008.

"Iron Man" may not exactly be a deep, thought provoking film, but it must be said that Favreau makes the film rise above other similar superhero films despite its problems. Sure, at its core this is nothing more than a tale of action and adventure meant to be entertaining (and it truly delivers), but Favreau makes not only an enjoyably thrilling ride out of it, but also an intelligent one, as despite being based on science fiction, the whole thing never feels like too much of a fantasy. It is pretty obvious that sequels will be made (naturally, the movie hints this quite explicitly too), but if they manage to be at least as good and entertaining as this one, I'm sure will have an excellent series of movies, probably even better than the "Spider-Man" ones. It may not be original, but it's pretty good.

8/10

The Walking Dead (1936)

While definitely a highly talented and extremely versatile actor, Boris Karloff's name will always be linked to the horror genre thanks not only to his classic performance in James Whale's "Frankenstein" (movie that along Tod Browning's "Dracula" started the "Golden Age" of Universal Studios' horror films in 1931), but also to the many other excellent movies he made within the limits of the genre, effectively earning himself a place amongst the horror icons of film history. By the year of 1936, Karloff was at the top of his game, following his performance in the 1935's masterpiece "Bride of Frankenstein" with a series of lesser known, yet highly entertaining gems such as "The Invisible Ray". It would be at this point where his career would take him back to the Warner Bros. Studios, where he had made several gangster films in the past. But instead of making another crime film, he would star in "The Walking Dead", a weird mix of both genres.

In "The Walking Dead", a gang of racketeers conceive a plan to murder Judge Roger Shaw (Joe King), setting up the recently released convict John Ellam (Boris Karloff) for the murder. Ellam is just a musician with bad luck who only wants a second chance to fix his life, but the gangsters' plan is effective and he ends up being sentenced to the electric chair. However, a young couple, Nancy (Marguerite Churchill) and Jimmy (Warren Hull) witnessed the crime, and know that Ellam is indeed innocent. While their fear of the gangsters' vengeance kept them silent during the trial, they decide to testify before its too late, but sadly, Ellam is executed before anything is done. Fortunately, Nancy and Jimmy are assistants of Dr. Evan Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn), a renowned scientist who decides to resurrect Ellam using an experimental method. But something is different in the resurrected Ellam now, and justice will be done.

Like many Warner Bros films of that era, the story was written (and probably rewritten more than one time) by a team of several writers under contract, however, Ewart Adamson could be pointed out as the driving force behind it as he also wrote the screenplay for it. Judging by its title and concept, it could be easily assumed that "The Walking Dead" is just another story of reanimated corpses and mad scientists (and the fact that Karloff stars in it adds more to the connection to "Frankenstein"), but this is definitely, a different kind of beast. Not only it includes the typical elements of gangster films , but also adds a different and uncommon view on the "supernatural revenge" theme: it truly plays heavily (and intelligently) with the themes of justice, innocence and guilt. In a very original twist (without spoiling too much), the "monster" acts more like the personification of guilt than like the typical murderous maniac of this kind of stories.

Better known as the orchestrator of the legendary classic, "Casablanca", director Michael Curtiz developed his talent through the 30s working in numerous productions for Warner, where he proved to be an effective and versatile filmmaker. In "The Walking Dead", Curtiz revives the look and style of the German Expressionism he knew at home (he was Hungarian), using the brilliant work of cinematographer Hal Mohr to create a haunting and extremely atmospheric horror film. Playing with lighting, dynamic camera angles and specially with the use of shadows, Mohr and Curtiz make a visually breathtaking film that at times feels like the bridge between Gothic horror and Film Noir. However, the movie is not only just stylish visual flare, as while Curtiz definitely polished his style in this film, it seems like he was aware that Karloff was the real star of the show, as he focuses the film completely on him and just lets the master do his magic.

And Boris Karloff truly shines in this film, as his character allows him to display a wide range of emotions that show what a great talent he was. The most striking feature is definitely how expressive are his eyes, as through them we get to see the inside of Ellam's innocent soul, which seems to serve a hidden, higher purpose. It is truly a powerful performance that could easily rank among his best. As Dr. Beaumont, Edmund Gwenn is more than effective, as he adds a lot of humanity to a role that could easily be another "mad scientist" type of character. However, I feel that Ricardo Cortez (who plays the gangsters' leader, Mr. Nolan) steals all his scenes, despite his limited screen time. I must also add that Marguerite Churchill is not only extremely beautiful, but also a great talent that manages to shine with her own light and avoid being overshadowed by Karloff, Gwenn and Cortez. Not an easy thing to do!

Effective, entertaining, and remarkably original, "The Walking Dead" is definitely another of those lesser known films from the 30s that get overshadowed by the classic movies done by Universal Studios despite being as good (or probably better) than most of them. Personally, I found the movie to be not only beautifully done, but also very intelligent and probably even philosophical, as while it certainly works under the stretches of science fiction, the way it touches themes such as death, fate and innocence is quite interesting in its conception. Some could say that the film hasn't aged well, but it's remarkable the way Curtiz employed his low budget to create a film that looks better than most A-films of its time (Curtiz was always considered an effective filmmaker for working under budget). Despite some minor problems, I think "The Walking Dead" is still one of the best movies from the 30s.

It's a real shame that "The Walking Dead" still remains an undiscovered gem from the decade of the 30s, as it's truly a wonderful and uncommon piece of horror cinema. I assume that this lack of recognition is mainly due to the fact that it isn't a movie one would call as easy to find (at the time I write this review, no DVD for this film has been released), but hopefully, this will change soon and more will discover this highly original and extremely powerful horror. While lesser known than other films by Curtiz, "The Walking Dead" is a film that shows how the talent of this often overlooked director (I think he was definitely more than just a gun for hire) was growing through the decade. A true discovery.

8/10
-------------------------------