Midsommar (2019) Review

Midsommar wastes little time throwing us into the depths of a tragic and realistic scenario. The protagonist of Dani, played by Florence Pugh, is in a dark and unloving environment, cut off from everyone and left unable to have any control in a situation where she would obviously so badly want it. Pugh’s performance of anguish and desperation makes this the best scene of the film. While she in turn goes to her boyfriend Christian, played by Jack Reynor, for emotional support after the death of her family, this doesn’t bring fulfillment as she needs a lot and he was already somewhat checked out. While Christian is in the eyes of many unlikable, he is somewhat sympathetic as he clearly wants more from his life and doesn’t know what to do. It’s arguably honorable of him to not go through with breaking up with Dani after her family dies.

Other than the dynamic of Christian and Dani, much of what is set up in the opening scenes matters much less once they get to Sweden and meet the commune. The movie would basically still work if you started it with Christian, Dani, and their friends arriving in Sweden, though there is subtextual significance. Dani’s experiences with the “Hårga commune” could be seen as an exaggerated metaphor for dealing with grief and how one finds where to go after losing something of significance. While various moments of the film can be looked at as either Swedish folklore, very fictionalized Swedish folklore, or something to be ripped apart to derive a deeper meaning, a lot of what happens are simply horror tropes. The movie is here to creep you out.

Many of the characters that went to the commune with Dani and Christian are far less interesting and seem more like filler and something for the leads to play off of. They have essentially nothing to contribute to the story. The commune does spooky things just for the sake of it and at the ending there’s someone who simply explains some of the mysteries you may have had about the story. The slow build pacing seems to be moving towards a bigger ending, but we basically just end with that explanation and an admittedly important resolution of the Dani and Christian plot while not touching other aspects, like Dani’s family, Christian’s argument with his friend Josh, their desire to write a paper about the commune, and the inbred character, among other elements.

SPOILERS

We see less and less of Dani’s emotions, especially as she affiliates herself more with the commune. This is all covered in stages, like when she starts cooking with the girls and wearing a little of their white clothes, only to eventually completely adopt it. To take this as a metaphor for dealing with loss, after she jumped to Christian for support and didn’t feel she was getting it, she would understandably want something else. The commune not only accepted her, but provided empathy and support in her time of need. She is also escaping the drab and depressing scenery of modern life for a more organic and social one. Cults often recruit vulnerable people that have recently gone through something very negative. It doesn’t  make sense that Dani would be so willing to go along with them, even the killings, but much of the movie is depicted with surreal and dreamlike hazes, like it’s not supposed to be taken at face value. She at points sees herself with grass growing off of her and by the end is covered in real flowers, like she is being taken over. Her being drugged could also be here to address this, possibly to provide for those wanting a “logical” explanation.

It is weird that Dani and company would be mostly tolerant of two elders jumping off a cliff publicly early on. Maybe you could say they were drugged to care less, but two of the people involved are clearly extremely upset by this and react more realistically? The audience seeing closeups of the deaths puts us in Dani’s mind. She just experienced death, so would this not deepen her trauma? Something about this scene that is brilliantly creepy is the explanation for this, that the elders are avoiding the suffering of old age and taking part in a rebirth. This does seem like the type of logic one might actually use to justify this, especially seeing as many don’t want to live to be very old. Dani’s tolerance is a bit more understandable this way as it’d be nice to think her family’s death is part of a great and natural thing.

Us seeing Christian’s perspective on things, like at the end where he is being used for his sperm, then runs around, sees the other character’s dead bodies, and gets killed himself can feel unnecessary, as this is Dani’s story. To tie it to Dani, she might see him as worth scorn due to him wanting to break up with her and then cheating. Before this climax, he is the only person not wearing white for a time, as if he’s a toxin to be expelled. Him dying represents her committing to this perceived solution to her trauma and leaving the last seen remnant of her life behind. Her choosing to kill him also finally gives her power, which can feel great to have even if you are not using it for a good reason. Christian earlier being alone nude can represent him losing his power and when a group of girls cry in unison with Dani, they’re giving her the support to feel stronger. This also shows that those that give you support in a time of need can very well manipulate you.

OVERVIEW

Midsommar doesn’t seem like it’d satisfy on a rewatch or even from one watch by someone who doesn’t want to look inside a movie. Many of my interpretations could very well be unintended, so the film is really just what you make of it. As it stands, you can’t deny the decent visuals and acting, even if sometimes the movie is focusing on something a little off topic.

Thirteen Women (1932) Review

A great promotional photo for the film

Thirteen Women is a slasher. The only thing about it that doesn’t fit that mold is a lack of blood, though it does have a kill count, pretty sorority girls, and a dark secret that’s come back to haunt them. Just like the more common examples of the genre, it gets far too stuck in bad performances and absurd plot developments. There’s little to get out of it, especially if you want more graphic violence.

Myrna Loy as Ursula Georgi and C. Henry Gordon as Swami Yogadachi both try way too hard to be witchy and creepy, coming off as cartoonish. The two have a romance for like one scene, which just seems like someone’s trying to fit in as many tropes as possible. “They’re a man and a woman, so they must kiss!” There is a clear attempt to give some layers to Ursula, but her solution to her plight is to just be evil and act like any other horror baddie, with Loy just having this eternal menace that comes off as not understanding the story or how to play this role.

Some of the sorority girl characters are better acted and have more interesting material. Irene Dunne as Laura Stanhope and Florence Eldridge as Grace Coombs are an example. They talk about the letters they’d received predicting a grizzly end and discuss whether they’re real. You also get the sense Laura is more so trying to keep a level mind, so someone is. Laura is a mother and a decent amount of the movie is her worrying about her kid. That relatable goal makes her very compelling. You can feel for her and understand the angst this must cause her. Dunne supplies a sharp performance, giving the movie some edge as a drama about coping with intense stress. She often shows her feelings on her face and body.

There’s a few really strong lines in the movie. One is, “You two are stumbling in a dark, material world. I am above it, as Yogadachi was. Death means peace, freedom. I shall meet him… gladly.” “Well, I shan’t.” While moments like this hint towards some deeper focus of death, living, and what it means to be in peace, these are mostly dropped for a little action and fighting. The ending of the movie is clearly trying to say something, but really just comes off as laughable. Other good lines are, “Depression or not, personally, I’m mad about this world.” The following quote is edited to avoid spoilers, “They’re all I’ve got. How can I help it with things I don’t understand striking out of the dark wh–where you can’t do anything, imagining that–that every little breath taken may be the last!?”

The opening scenes concerning the “Raskob sisters” are very suspenseful, especially when we see Mary Duncan as June Raskob’s nervous face as she approaches the dangerous stunt. See her face when the drumroll starts and she is making concerned faces to someone. Overall, moments of slow suspense, like wondering if a certain thing will happen, are solid. The big dumb action fair or scenes of basically nothing of use happening should’ve been removed. Speaking of which…

I watched this movie for my latest obsession, Peg Entwistle. I love her, though her acting is mediocre and hammy. She may as well not be here due to how little she gets. Apparently instead of four minutes of screentime, she originally had sixteen before a cut. It’d be nice to see those missing scenes, especially because it seems quite a whole lot was removed, including two of the thirteen girls mentioned in the title. That’s right, we only ever see eleven. Some of the shown eleven have very minimal roles, so it’d be nice to have gotten more development, such as in seeing the bond they have. The fact they were in a sorority together, as opposed to other connectors, suggests a familiarity with each other. They’re honorary sisters and either should stick together or dig up old issues from the past.

SPOILERS

When one of the Raskob sisters jumps from the trapeze, seeing her in slow motion with no music makes for a chilling moment. It’s a little ridiculous June wouldn’t have warned anyone of the letter she received that predicted this. Interestingly, Entwistle’s character actually survives the movie while so many others. Even her character in the book this is based on doesn’t make it. Entwistle herself didn’t live to see this movie released.

My favorite character here is Helen Dawson Frye, played by Kay Johnson. She projects a lot of confidence, though you can tell how broken she is by both her friends’ and her child’s death. She seems to not know what else to do other than to have a light heart towards the letter saying she’d kill herself. She bags the great and somber line, “Yes. That’s why she’s getting us all together– To laugh it all away. I haven’t laughed in so long.” She later has a surprisingly dark moment of pointing a gun at her chest, then she starts doing what sounds like a mix of laughing and crying. She also mirrors the other mother here.

Laura’s son almost dies a few times. The intensity and simultaneous casualness is so creepy. The son might just be living his normal life, only for us to know something nearly happened. At least Ursula had beef with the titular women. That son didn’t do anything, so he would’ve only been killed to make Laura suffer, possibly only for a little before her demise. The ending seems to try to make Ursula a little sympathetic. She says that the sorority girls she’s been killing off picked on her for being only part-white. Laura in turn doesn’t deny that, though does seem apologetic. The message here seems to be to not discriminate, though that is muddied by having the non-white character be a vindictive killer who seems to blame all white people. Thus, the movie isn’t better than the average racist media of the time for showing minority groups as villainous, scheming, and unable to relate to white people.

The acting is also particularly bad here. Ursula’s laugh is a notable silly part. She then runs to the end of the train and jumps off, thus following the great tradition of villains getting killed off very suddenly and sometimes in a ridiculous way. Her seeing Swami’s face before she jumps is also quite novel. Her having a gruesome death was foreshadowed, but why not have something like her trying to escape authorities, slipping on something, and falling off? She just throws herself away to get the movie to an end.

OVERVIEW

While perhaps the film is saying something worthwhile about racism, such a message gets caught up in hokey performances and a dreadfully dull and by the numbers story. There are a few worthwhile segments, so many it’s possible with the deleted scenes a better film could be made, though Loy’s portrayal makes that difficult.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Entwistle’s character in the book is a lesbian, so here’s hoping the deleted scenes of the movie show that, which I highly doubt, but it’s fun to dream as the Peg Entwistle fan I am.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) Review

Doctor Who template

At least by modern standards, The Most Dangerous Game is hard to take seriously. Its drama is heavy handed, with strong music overemphasizing big moments, a comically villainous antagonist, and a strong jawed male lead. Joel McCrea as Bob Rainsford gets some unintentional laughs in how he never seems to show fear or even emote. It’s as if McCrea wanted to look good, so insisted his character have almost no “faults” by some strange standard. Still, off of the thrills and scope of the scenes in the jungle, the movie is hard not to love. Even the scenes indoors or other settings look really creepy and intimidating, creating a very striking scenery. The directing adds to this, with some intense shots, like someone in the background watching another in the foreground, which creates a sense of dread. There’s also a lot of darkly lit closeups.

Fay Wray as Eve Trowbridge works as someone for Bob to work off of, but lacks much character or substance. If this story was a book, she could be naturally replaced with us hearing thoughts in Bob’s head. She covers some stereotypes of how women typically are in these movies, but she doesn’t get stuck in those too badly. She has a few highlights. Leslie Banks as Count Zaroff can never be taken seriously, always a mustache twirler. He often overacts his scenes. The character is written reasonably well, with his self-centered obsession with experiencing thrills and being a destined hunter playing into his decisions often. He says his father said his hand was “made for the trigger”. Some of the lesser moments are scarier, like when he asks one of his minions to smile. The smile looks very unnatural.

The final act is decent, but goes into some dull directions of essentially everyone running around a lot. It sometimes does pack in some excitement, but that’s not very consistent. Before that final act, there’s too much setting up the characters, which doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. Throughout, there are scenes like Eve calling Bob over silently while Zaroff plays the piano and other bits that at least serve to give the actors slightly more range and things to do that are pleasant to look at. The movie is another overwhelmingly dull.

SPOILERS

There’s a great early scene of screaming and panic befalling those on the ship, with graphic shots of bodies hitting the water and people being eaten by sharks, all filmed with quick cuts and peak intensity. We see a lot of people die horrible deaths. This is all the more terrifying because everyone seems really afraid and as minor characters, they don’t have plot armor. When Bob and Eve are being hunted later, they don’t seem that afraid. The intense brutality of this all is minimized by Bob. Right before all this happens, he says he’s a hunter and not prey and nothing will ever change that, being really oversold foreshadowing.

When someone Bob is on a piece of wreckage with is pulled down by a shark, he barely tries to help them and doesn’t even really seem to care. He later says that his “best friends” were killed on the boat, however he never seems traumatized or shaken by any of it. Based on how he acts, you’d think at worst maybe his friend’s friend died unfortunately and he was just hearing about it, instead of seeing people die in front of him as they scream. When a very worried Eve tells Bob that Zaroff has been keeping her and her brother from leaving, Bob says that maybe he enjoys their company, like what she’s saying isn’t terrifying in its implications. Eve later telling her brother to get an early night, as if concerned Zaroff will do something bad, is a really chilling moment.

Wray does a pretty good job when her character discovers her brother is dead. It’s hard for someone that’s never experienced that to know how someone would act, but it is believable what happens, where she seemingly has a second of disbelief, then starts raising her voice and hitting Zaroff, then she’s taken away by force and begins screaming. Her yelling as she leaves the room is a chilling moment and a highlight of this adventure. When we next see her, she’s distracted by many other things, so it makes sense she might be more focused on her own and Bob’s safety, than her brother’s death. It is a shame that at no point after she is taken away screaming does she mention her brother. When she’s on the boat at the end, why not show her crying over that?

When Bob and Eve are taken into the jungle, Bob says they’ll win, Eve says the others didn’t, then Bob raises his voice with, “We will!” This is a great point that finally shows some insecurity from the lead. He doesn’t seem confident that they will, but it makes sense he’d want to at least try to believe it. Eve later foolishly almost steps on a tripwire that would’ve gotten her killed and she knew about. When that tripwire plan fails, as it was likely to, it appears the leads had no backup plan on how to get Zaroff. Zaroff shooting an arrow right beside Bob and talking to him as Bob silently listens is another great scene.

At one point, Eve starts running away, which doesn’t seem terribly like her. There’s no reason to get away at that moment and Bob obviously would be someone she should stick with, as he knows what he’s doing. The structure of the game itself is a little dull. Instead of stakes escalating, a lot of time is spent on things being tried, then just failing. This problem is eventually corrected when the baddies start getting closer and closer, then eventually it seems Zaroff really does kill Bob. It’s also nice that Bob and Eve are forced down a path that Zaroff’s other victims were killed at, despite originally making a point to avoid it.

It would’ve been a shame if Bob had done everything you’d expect an average person to do, then survive. He does do some things differently, namely jump into the waterfall. It makes me wonder if the only reason Bob was written to be a talented hunter was so that that could be used to explain how he would manage to survive when no one else before him did. The waterfall fight is also really intense. Zaroff playing the piano, only for Bob to unexpectedly and quietly walk in is a tense and sharply directed moment. Bob does manage to really look like a badass by seeming so composed and intelligent, instead of before where he just seemed unable to emote. “You have beaten me!” “Not yet.” is a great line.

Zaroff seems to be lacking in principle. As per his word, he should’ve let Bob go, but he was still trying to kill him at the end, probably because Bob might tell the authorities about him. That weakens some moments where he empowers Bob, such as by giving him a knife, as he wants to be fair. While him saying he’s principled is all well and good, why not have a twist where he proves he’s not in a more dramatic and apparent way? He says he won’t kill Eve, but what if at one point he tries to and is stopped by Bob, thus giving Eve a real reason to be afraid and the both of them to doubt they’d be allowed to get off the island even if they won the game?

Zaroff ultimately suffers a lame death, being mostly taken out by being stabbed by an arrow, then falling into his dogs. Doubly foolish is he seems to have not intended to actually let Bob leave, but he does give him a key and instructions on how to escape. The last shot of Bob and Eve driving off into the distance is a pretty one. It is a novelty that they never explicitly end up together romantically.

OVERVIEW

The Most Dangerous Game is frankly very silly. Still, it’s so much fun that it’s hard not to love for how wacky it can be, while having genuinely beautiful cinematography and direction.

The Invisible Ray (1936) Review

Karloff and Lugosi in the film

The Invisible Ray has the story of a corny b-movie, but does offer some quality elements that make it more interesting. The acting is relatively strong, especially when it comes to Boris Karloff as Dr. Janos Rukh and Bela Lugosi as Dr. Felix Benet’s complicated relationship. Something that made the first half of the movie reasonably strong is that while everyone has their strong opinions on each other, they put that aside for the sake of maturity and also helping others. These sorts of stories usually turn towards the characters hating each other, so it would be frankly novel to have otherwise. The second half plays way too much into old tropes. The weakest and most hammy moments are in the second half, though not exclusive to it.

Another big issue is Frances Drake as Diana, who is lacking in much characterization, more being a focal point for the men. Her marriage to Rukh and involvement with the various characters could’ve been used to emphasize certain points about the story, mainly that some don’t like or understand Rukh, but obviously she does to some degree, or else she wouldn’t have married him. Rukh’s mother, played by Violet Kemble Cooper, essentially fills the role of being someone that seems to relate and appreciate Janos Rukh. If the mother had not been a character and instead her scenes reworked to be for Diana, especially the mother’s last in the movie, the scene and Diana herself would arguably be more poignant and meaningful.

The other main players seem like they are supposed to have more relevance, but ultimately amount to very little. Frank Lawton as Ronald Drake is essentially just eye candy that doesn’t have a presence in the same way female characters in these sorts of movies often are. Karloff and Lugosi, however, have great chemistry and make the movie. You can tell their characters have strong opinions on each other, even when they first appear in the movie together. It would’ve been nice to learn more about them, though that’s not necessary. They both have the same desire to help people and use their scientific minds. As events occur, their different views manifest in their own ways. Sometimes that means some cheesy shlock, but more often than not they have an uncomfortable tolerance of the situation. Also, it’s fun seeing Bela be a good guy.

The opening text is pretty silly, basically trying to say the technology in this movie could exist one day. There’s an amusing shot where Diana walks across a hallway as dramatic music plays. Possibly the best scene in the film is when Rukh describes the solar system as we see shots of the solar system and those watching it. The editing does wonders to make things feel otherworldly and like Rukh has really been onto something. The scene oozes atmosphere and intrigue. The movie doesn’t have much to do with space, which does let this moment down a bit.

SPOILERS

Rukh has random moments that foreshadow his villainy, even before he gets poisoned. Rukh’s madness is shown (briefly after being poisoned) when he terrorizes some Africans in order to get them to help him. He later kills a dog, albeit by accident. When Diana goes to see Rukh after he knows he can kill people with a touch, he’s such a jerk to her and acts like nothing is wrong. Why be so rude? Rukh and Benet are later way too comfortable being close to each other. For all they know, what Rukh has got could be transmissible through breath or if Benet touches something Rukh just did. After Benet cures Rukh, he touches him. How does he know he isn’t getting something dangerous on him? He wouldn’t know how good the anecdote is. Rukh should’ve immediately quarantined and not interacted with people unless done very safely.

Rukh’s turn to murder is foreshadowed subtly when he is enraged that Benet has shown some of what they learned to others, so the dangerous power wouldn’t all be in Rukh’s hands. He was right. Rukh shouldn’t be the only one with that control. Karloff is a little too hammy when he learns Diana is leaving him. Despite that weak spot, minutes later we get one of Rukh’s last moments of humanity and normalcy when he cures his mother’s blindness. Janos looks genuinely shocked and joyous that he helped her. His mother doesn’t forget this is a horror, and is afraid. It’s a great scene with both giving great performances.

When Rukh starts his killing, Benet becomes way too much of an idiot. Hilariously, he drops a negative that proves Rukh killed someone. The scene is so clumsy you could about believe Lugosi dropped it by accident. Instead of immediately reporting Rukh, he seems to do nothing. Rukh is then able to take another victim’s life. Benet and Drake’s plan to get Rukh is even more absurd. It endangers them, Diana, and plenty of innocent people. They know Rukh has gone nuts, so would they really know he would not kill someone uninvolved? Benet at one point nonchalantly says that anyone that touches Rukh dies. If one didn’t know conventions of this era of cinema, you might think Benet was actually a villain who wanted people to die, not that that is the case.

Rukh is able to sneak into an event by convincing a professor to go into a dark alley and take a sip of a drink. You’d think the guy wouldn’t have been so foolish. When Rukh and Benet see each other later, both talk instead of immediately going to kill the other. Why wait when Rukh just wants Benet to die and Benet has to consider the safety of the others? In fact, Rukh later has the opportunity to kill Diana and would’ve if he hadn’t decided not to. The two have a bizarrely casual conversation. Rukh seems to be trying to convince Benet of why he deserves to die instead of just doing it. He then says, “It will be easiest just to shake hands.” Benet understandably goes for his gun, but did Rukh think Benet would just let himself be murdered for no reason?

Later, Drake is weirdly casual about the fact a killer is after him and his wife and he could very well end up dying. Diana later doesn’t seem to try very hard to stop Rukh from killing her new husband. Do Drake and Diana even like each other? Rukh’s mother destroying the cure to Janos’ poison and thus causing him to kill himself is a powerful moment that plays on their scenes throughout. It’s tragic she would have to do that, but it makes sense because she knows what he’s been doing. Still, Rukh’s actual death and the ending as a whole play too much into being over the top and too dramatic. While you can imagine why the mother would’ve killed him, it’s a shame we didn’t get much on how she’d take something so morbid. Their relationship was so touching in the movie, it’s a shame that wasn’t concluded in the last moments or at all, which would’ve made for a sharp ending.

OVERVIEW

The Invisible Ray is a lot of fun, but don’t take it too seriously. The third act drops way too much of what was working about the film.

White Zombie (1932) Review

While it’s not uncommon for movies of the time to have cheesy acting or bad sound design, White Zombie really pushes just how bad it can make those. The normally electrifying Bela Lugosi, who even brings some power to Ed Wood movies, seems like he really doesn’t care or know what to do. He’s often extremely emotionless, possibly in an attempt to seem intimidating. His character of “Murder Legendre” is similar to Lugosi’s famous role of Dracula. Both are quiet and able to command and control people on a supernatural level. Thus, it’s bizarre here he can’t think of anything to give Legendre. A line like “There is no other way” severely lacks the threat or intensity of a better movie, coming off as Lugosi trying way too hard to be scary. This movie could easily be a prequel to Dracula, though that would weigh down the superior and more famous adventure by tying it to this. It being a prequel would fix one of the lamest elements of Zombie.

Characters sometimes just describe plot information in a way a real person wouldn’t say. They can also seem pretty nonchalant about the dangers going on. Some of these lines would make more sense if this was a novel and the dialogue was instead someone’s thoughts. The other main players consist of Robert W. Frazer as Charles Beaumont, Madge Bellamy as Madeleine Short, John Harron as Neil Parker. All have great potential that isn’t used. Charles usually just stands around or does things with not much to connect with behind his eyes. He’s little more than an explanation of how the others crossed paths with Murder. Yet, his goals are very interesting and could make for great examinations we don’t get.

When Madeleine and Neil are at low points, they can ring out some intensity and draw you into the story. Bellamy is given too little to do, being an object for others, but is not bad at filling that function. Despite Neil’s experiences being mostly unrelatable, he can come across as very human when we see him try to deal with what’s happened. His pain resonates strongly. When things aren’t so bad, their performances are way too thin. The other relevant character for discussion, Joseph Cawthorn as Dr. Bruner, is also very weak. He never seems to grasp that we’re supposed to be scared, even adding unnecessary comic relief by asking for a match multiple times. He gives his lines like he either thinks they’re incredibly stupid or like he thinks this is a comedy. There’s barely even an attempt at seeming invested.

Opening the movie on what appears to be a chant is a really creepy and effective opening. Soon enough we see Lugosi’s famous eyes, which adds to the atmosphere greatly. The way the eyes zoom back and then disappear is pretty funny in how silly it looks. While we get some nice imagery of things like the zombies doing work, they don’t ever do much, essentially being set decoration. With very few changes, Murder and Charles could’ve been the only antagonists. (With a few more we could lose Charles, too.) Later, there’s a freaky shot of the camera moving up the body of a zombie in a closeup. A shot of a castle looks like an unrealistic painting, though it is a pretty image in its own right.

Miscellanea includes: While it’s understandable Neil might not believe the men they saw were zombies, he seems weirdly unphased, more specifically like his actor has no idea how to deliver this dialogue. Fans of lady skin and underwear will be pleased by a more or less pointless scene of Bellamy stripped down. Another positive is that the split screen both doesn’t look too bad and captures the emotions of the characters well, because of what it’s showing.

SPOILERS

Bellamy’s “I see death” line is sharp. Her seeing Murder in a glass has potential, but has a sense of goofiness to it. The best scene of the movie is probably when Neil is trying to drink his sorrows away. It’s so shattering when he imagines Madeleine, showing the longing he has. He then tries to grab her and, realizing she obviously wasn’t there, gets extremely emotional. We also see him trying to reach for her while partially obscured in darkness. Later, he goes to her coffin and upon finding she’s not there, yells. We can feel him going mad.

Elements like Charles’ madness and regret and Madeleine’s possession are good ideas, but nothing is done with them or said about them. This could’ve been reframed as a commentary on anything, at least human nature, but instead there’s very little character development or focus. Despite my praise towards Neil’s performance, when he sees Madeleine in person, you’d think he’d have a more emotional reaction than he does. He is way too muted.

The ending starts off incredibly poorly. When Murder gets in a little trouble, all his zombie minions walk off a convenient cliff. Why would they do that than to just get themselves out of the way? The movie seemed to dare to end a little differently than expected. Usually the baddie gets killed, but with just over a minute left, Murder is fine, only to be pushed off the cliff and die one of the dumbest villain deaths to be seen. The obvious dummy is extra ridiculous, almost guaranteed to give this film more value as a comedy than a horror. Seeing the dummy be carried off camera by the waves is also wonderful.

Murder was already attacked from behind before, so you’d think he’d learn his lesson, not that the first time wasn’t already pathetic. When Neil showed up to his castle earlier, he was able to sense him. You’d think he could sense that someone was behind him then. Thus, my personal theory is that Legendre possessed a zombie to look and act like him, so he could get away and that zombie be killed. There is still the issue of why wouldn’t he kill everyone and not need an escape, seeing as he had so much power and control, but that is the lesser issue here? After Murder is killed, Charles jumps to his death and amusingly no one seems to care. A chance to see Neil and Madeleine reconnect is ruined by before they kiss, Bruner asks for a match, like that in any way matches or ties off all we’ve seen. Ending on a kiss would be much better.

Mainly because of the little that is interesting here, Neil’s depression over Madeleine’s death and their complicated reunion, this could maybe work edited down to a short film? Perhaps in it Murder gets away at the end? You would miss the decent slow burn of letting us feel Neil’s suffering before he reunites with Madeleine, but that’s worth the trade off.

OVERVIEW

If you’re going to give a chance to White Zombie, have the volume control ready for all the times the music starts blasting or ridiculous screams are hard, even to the point of making it hard to hear the characters or just sounding laughable. The long shots of the score playing over Murder’s face blurring or him grasping his hands is both way too slow and again worthy of an undesired giggle.

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) Review

Joan of Arc in the film

Mystery of the Wax Museum demonstrates something many don’t know, that The Wizard of Oz isn’t the first color film, not even the first to be pretty much all color. Admittedly, the color in Wax Museum and a lot of other early examples don’t look terribly realistic, unlike Oz. Still, this movie has a surreal look to the color. It looks like it could be an intentional artistic decision, especially because we’re seeing a lot of wax sculptures, which are intended to look like people, but often aren’t perfect. The “unrealistic” look doesn’t compromise any mood or ability to see something.

Everything looks stylish and atmospheric. Some of the shots look like they could be professional photographs. A favorite is one of Glenda Farrell running and yelling at night. A lot of the story is set during the night. The look of the film also compliments the narrative itself. The movie is generally dark, while the tone is a bit brighter. That suggests that there’s something sinister that’s hard to place, but always around.

Glenda Farrell as Florence Dempsey is a lot of fun, while also being a really effective focal point for the story. While the other actors have lots of charm and class, Farrell has it all. She’s funny, relatable, a guide for the narrative, and much more. Those little comedy elements don’t detract from or lessen the horror, instead making for tasteful comic relief that also shows us something about Florence, that she tries not to take things too seriously. Farrell and Frank McHugh as Jim have really good comedic chemistry, while also driving the plot and our protagonist. She sometimes does things in response to what he says. McHugh is also the master of cheesy 30s movie dialogue. “That you’re a sure bet to place in the breadline. There’s no room on this rag for the purely ornamental. You’re easy on the eyes and pretty conceited about it.” “Is mama’s little dumpling getting tough?”

Other funny moments include, “Okay brother, then you can go to some nice warm place, and I don’t mean California!” A scene of Jim throwing a ball of paper at Florence seems like it could’ve been the actors having so much fun they improvised a bit. At one point, Florence asks someone how their sex life is. A character openly discusses in front of policemen having a bootlegger. Still, this film is not a comedy, but doesn’t let the comedy overtake the other elements. There is one point at the end where the comedy is too much.

Lionel Atwill as Ivan Igor is easy to relate to after all the bad things that happen to him, selling him as a wise older figure with a passion for his craft. Fay Wray as Charlotte Duncan has less personality than Farrell, but still is very serviceable in her role here. Charlotte screams so much it becomes a plot point. It’s really irritating how often she does it, making her seem like a damsel in distress. It’s both very stylish and creepy when Igor sees Charlotte and imagines her dressed as Marie Antoinette. Wray has immense beauty, looking like someone worth having a statue made of. Most of the handsome male leads are perfectly fine, but don’t do much.

While practically all of the wax sculptures have this to some degree, the one of Joan of Arc is especially creepy. Not sure why, probably the longing eyes. There’s one point where Farrell’s sentence is amusingly cut off awkwardly by a cut. Some of the wax sculptures move slightly or blink. Of course, these are extremely minor issues, just personally notable. The movie delves mildly into b-movie horror tropes, but they do add to the sense of fun. The climax does much more strongly embrace the spectacle of a horror villain doing villainy, with everything happening in an over the top way that lacks substance. Most of the movie doesn’t even really have a villain, so having one at the end, and even an evil laboratory, is something one might laugh at, and not in a good way.

SPOILERS

The opening fight scene is really creepy and thrilling. An intense fight scene is surrounded by realistic wax sculptures melting. It’s very unsettling. When Florence takes some bottles of booze that don’t belong to her in front of some cops, they ask her what she’s doing, she talks back to them, and they let her carry on. It’s incredibly disappointing that we discover the big twist because someone just explained it instead of seeing it. Why not have us find out the wax statues come from dead bodies by having us see something like one being built or Charlotte being told she’ll be turned into one?

We get a great reveal of a different twist when Igor’s face falls off and we learn he covered his badly burnt one with wax. After Igor overpowers someone, why leave him just lying there? He could get up and attack him later. Igor was in a wheelchair, but we see him running and jumping around in a chase later. Regardless, the scene of him fighting the police is very cinematic and stylish. It’s a lot of fun seeing what’s going to happen next, though it makes no sense.

The typical romance of old movies is subverted. A character directly says he’s in love with Florence, with it being played as silly that he would be. In the last moments of the movie, Jim, who showed no interest in Florence, asks to marry her. This, as well as Florence accepting, is played as being ridiculous, but so much so as to be funny. This scene also doesn’t forget to fit in some actual jokes. One issue here is that the movie has almost no comedy in it, being more about horror and the comedy usually only serving to give extra personality to Florence. Thus, the ending should’ve reflected that. Still, this scene does work on its own merits and would be great at the end of a screwball. It also ties off our protagonist in a believable way. She wasn’t particularly ethical or unselfish at any point, so it’s good she doesn’t just become “a nice girl”. She was shown to care mostly about getting ahead in life financially, never showing interest in love. It makes sense she wouldn’t care about who she’s marrying, as long as it helps her.

OVERVIEW

While in some ways a little cheesy, Mystery of the Wax Museum is so much fun with its nail biting mystery and a consistently lovable cast as to be a great watch. Glenda Farrell really kills it.

The Thing (1982) Review

Kurt Russell as MacReady

The Thing is rightfully considered a great atmospheric horror movie that strives in showcasing the insanity of human beings in these sorts of stressful situations, with the otherworldly terror here adding a new layer to the dread. The movie establishes its slow creepiness from the get go, with the opening titles being white text on a black background, with the sound initially silent before music slowly starts. The acting is mostly very good, as is the tense dialogue. The characterization is a little token at points and the effects are mixed. Some of the effects are fantastic, while others don’t hold up, looking too much like dummies or sculptures. Some of the bad ones are prominent enough that their faults are easy to spot, when the movie could’ve been careful to mask them.

Many of the characters are more muted than I originally thought in previous viewings. A notable example is Keith David as Childs, who is relatively uninvolved. Many of the others just serve as fodder to make you wonder if they’re the thing or not. Thomas G. Waites as Windows is the weakest actor, notably when complaining about not being able to get in contact with anyone, not that his performance is so bad as to sink the movie. A scene of Nauls and Windows shouting comes off a little comical due to the lack of other noises. Perhaps the actors thought there’d be more noise added in post, so it’d make sense for them to be as loud as they are?

The opening shot of the arctic is handheld and rugged, looking like documentary footage. That mirrors the general discomfort we’re supposed to have with this closed off and unloved space, where it’d be dangerous to even go outside for a long period of time. The core of the movie is Kurt Russell as R. J. MacReady. He gets the most focus in the story, despite not being very strongly defined. He for the most part seems to have a moral compass, though he is in some ways very unlikable. There doesn’t seem to be much reason why he is the main character due to him not having much more insight or significance throughout the story than the others, other than at points being considered the leader.

SPOILERS

The Norwegian seemingly was going to throw a grenade at the dog, which may have resulted in people being killed. That would cause the others to distrust him. There’s a shot of someone trying to find the grenade after it’s dropped. That was probably left in by mistake. It could be explained as there being a second person that was in the helicopter that got out to get the grenade. How did MacReady understand the danger of the thing before he went to where the dogs were? Him hearing their barking seemed to be what was supposed to have caused that.

MacReady shooting Clark and a dog makes him hard to like when the movie wants you to. They sink him to at best careless and at worst malevolent. Moments like the others wanting to trap him outside in the desperate cold seem to exist to get you on his side, but if we’re supposed to be then why include his moments of cruelty? Any potential commentary intended about him is so easy to miss it might not even be there or be intended. The scene of the Bennings-Thing screaming is rightfully an iconic moment, bathed in an uncomfortable dark mood, especially with the creature eventually being lit ablaze, creating illumination. Clark witnessing the murdered dogs is very impactful, with us feeling his pain. However, this character and his story doesn’t get resolved. He ultimately is killed unceremoniously by MacReady. It would’ve made more sense for MacReady to have killed all the dogs, so Clark later trying to jump him would be retaliation.

The Norris-Thing is another special effects highlight, especially seeing the head separate and try to run away. Just before, Copper losing his arms doesn’t look very realistic. Later on, Windows’ death scene makes for probably the worst special effect, with the use of a dummy being extremely obvious. When MacReady says they all won’t make it out alive, the others don’t seem very phased in response. The movie could’ve included some foreshadowing to this, like if the characters he talked to were either shown to be eager to return home and see their families or were carefree and willing to do dangerous things, something for MacReady’s line to follow.

There doesn’t seem to be much point to who dies and when, save for MacReady making it to the end. At the point where it’s just him, Garry, and Nauls; it being them would make more sense if they had a specific bond established. Maybe they exceptionally disliked each other, but now have an understanding and are content to work together? Garry and Nauls are soon killed off with little fanfare. Some of the characters, like Windows and Nauls before their deaths, made really dumb decisions. Characters like the two mentioned and Clark have deaths that seem crammed in, like they were forgotten about in the script, then at the last second their deaths were written in. Thus, the pacing and stakes are janky, with certain things being established, like Blair going mad slowly and Garry being a good marksman, only for the movie to end with a succession of progressively faster and meaningless kills that negate much point to the cast. There’s little reaction to someone these people have personally known dying. Other deaths like Norris’ and Bennings’ are necessary and they work well because of that.

MacReady is ultimately proven to be a terrible leader. The movie glorifies him a little, such as with him being the focal point, being the one to defeat the thing, and ultimately surviving to the end. When the others think he’s been replaced with the thing, we’re supposed to want him to make it. However, by the end of the movie everyone except him and Childs explicitly dies, sometimes by MacReady. They might have been better off getting a competent leader or letting MacReady freeze to death. There’s not even much reason to think that he successfully destroyed the thing. It’s suspected and not contradicted that any piece of a thing that escapes destruction could grow and reform. It’s likely some of it could’ve escaped the burning base, especially because the thing can survive in the cold. Considering the enormity of having to destroy every molecule of the thing, how could anyone ever hope to kill it? There’s also some tension as to whether or not Childs is really the thing, with MacReady seeming to think that’s possible. That being said, MacReady earlier in the movie saying that if everyone except him was a thing, they’d all just kill him could potentially be foreshadowing for this ending, with Childs being still human as if he wasn’t he’d kill MacReady.

The ending is best left ambiguous. The lack of resolution creates for a poignant and impactful takeaway, though it is a little annoying for those invested in what will happen next and if the thing was really destroyed or not. A lot of endings you could imagine might have plot holes, such as the aforementioned unlikelihood of truly killing every last bit of the thing. It’s best to be able to imagine your own resolution. If you are to take any of the sequel media as canon, then MacReady explicitly failed to destroy the thing, which is unsatisfying due to all that was sacrificed for him to perhaps accomplish that.

OVERVIEW

Due to things like character dynamics not coming to much and some plot contrivances, this movie isn’t as flawless as it is to some, including myself the first time I watched it. I thought I’d like it more on a repeat, but alas. Despite the criticisms, the mystery, tension, performances, among other aspects rightly push this movie to the level of “classic”. I recommend The Thing to all, as most would.

It’s easy to imagine an alternate universe where Russell returned for sequel after sequel, which expands on what the thing is and his character, with a fan favorite The Things and an unloved CGI-fest The Thing: 2000.

Red Dwarf S03E03 Polymorph // Series 3 (1989) Review Part 3

Context for those unfamiliar with Red Dwarf (Spoilers for S01E01 of the show)

Dave Lister, played by Craig Charles, is the last man alive. He’s living in the mining ship “Red Dwarf” with a hologram of his dead roommate, Rimmer, played by Chris Barrie; a member of a species of evolved cats, “The Cat”, played by Danny John-Jules; a computer on the ship, Holly, played by Hattie Hayridge as of series three; and also as of series three, a robot, Kryten, played by Robert Llewellyn. Rimmer died due to a radiation leak that killed everyone on “Red Dwarf”, except for Lister and non-humans.

“Polymorph” does have the feeling of an “event” episode. It’s an Alien parody; the lighting is very distinct, with dark, rich, gorgeous blues; and starts with a warning about its contents, which was not actually necessary, but was done for the sake of atmosphere. The stakes are solid. The episode doesn’t promise anything it can’t deliver on. It’s not serious and it makes the story all that much funnier. It features an amusing subversion of horror tropes, we get a very clear look almost immediately at the alien, who looks absurd. Most of the cast utilize their fluidity with each other and manage to be very and consistently charming. There is a shameful exception…

The exposition and Kryten apologizing to Rimmer both can feel a little tedious. For the former, you could argue it’d be better to show and not tell. For the latter, it’s not particularly funny. The big issue with both is that Robert Llewellyn feels so awkward and uncomfortable, overacting a little, like he doesn’t know how to take the character. There’s even a scene where it looks like he’s reading from a script. If he isn’t, he at least gives such an awkward impression. The other five main actors from series one-three were way more at home in their roles from the word go. At the very least, these bits have good comedic payoff and aren’t too long. A scripting issue is that the script just moves on to Rimmer talking about another matter, as if the “apologizing” scene hadn’t been there. There are other little elements that suggest a lack of care in ironing out small details.

Miscellaneous comments include: Where is the voice at the beginning coming from? The episode would build better atmosphere without it, though it leads to a reasonably good joke. The contrast between how the monster is described and shown is quite clever. The episode name appearing on screen answers what this creature is called. Holly and Kryten both have to share giving exposition on the alien. Before series three, Holly did that and ultimately Kryten will do that.

SPOILERS

There’s a case of bad continuity where Kryten says he can’t find the underwear, despite it being clearly visible. The heat-seeking bazookoid blasts don’t go after Kryten, though wouldn’t he be producing heat? Some say the Polymorph would not have been able to latch onto Rimmer, but it seems reasonably easy to find an excuse for how that would be possible. Maybe there could be a holographic extension? It’s a little disturbing that the Cat almost got killed by friendly fire, dying for no real reason. “Oh, look, it’s bonehead’s mum.” is perhaps my favorite line. That one’s been stuck in my head for years now!

We see more of Rimmer’s family life. Rimmer is delusional on a friendship he had with his brothers as a child and it is possible that his mother is the type to sleep with his friend, then insult Rimmer. Rimmer mentions everyone should escape in Starbug. Later in the show, they would be Starbug bound. Rimmer’s “guilty” gag is a favorite, as is that scene with his mother. “Alphabetti Spaghetti!” is one of the all time classic lines of Red Dwarf.

The ending was a bit disappointing. While the way the Polymorph was bested was really funny, it was so quick. A little bit of action here or there would’ve helped. A better ending that wouldn’t have been more expensive would be if the group constantly beat on boxes they think are the Polymorph, then at one point they go somewhere, there’s a beat of silence, then the Polymorph appears.

OVERVIEW

This is one I was laughing with constantly. The material here is very good. The second half is especially funny, as the core story has been set up already; it’d be nice to have gotten more of that. Still, the first half is very solid.

The Vampire Lovers (1970) Review

The poster that is way more interesting than the film itself and doesn’t present an event from the film.

The Vampire Lovers is a film by Hammer Films. Being Hammer entails some positives and negatives. Their films can thrill. They have blood, breasts, violence, anything that can satisfy the cheap thrills people want. The Vampire Lovers delivers that. Someone who wants to turn off some brains and see some very softcore sex scenes can enjoy this film for that. Director Roy Ward Baker turns out a decent looking film with nice technicolor, but no soul. The film screams “commercial product”. The film looks alright. The acting is (mostly) alright. The dialogue is alright. There’s not much that’s completely terrible, but nothing clever or interesting, other than the cheap thrills. A dynamic looking film can encapsulate an audience. Dramatic angles and cinematography can make the film feel three-dimensional.

The best part of the whole thing is Peter Cushing, who plays “The General”. He’s great in everything, including here. The character even gets some dramatic moments, which he handles well. The character is easy to relate to and empathize with solely because of Cushing’s acting. There aren’t any bad actors, which is of course a positive. Some actors don’t really get the chance to be good, as most characters don’t get much screen time. Ingrid Pitt’s performance as Marcilla is decent like the rest. She plays a very seductive character, which she pulls off well. She doesn’t have many scenes outside of doing that, despite being a very prominent character, possibly because she can’t. She’s not very good at being intimidating or conservative, just sexy. One scene of her naked gives her character the impression that she’s exposed and has nothing to hide, that’s a good character moment. She’s also being sexy here.

Some highlights of the film are a few good lines. Madeline Smith as Emma gets some good dialogue to show her as a simple minded, innocent young woman. She says to a man she’s dancing with that she’s glad he’s not looking at the more eye-catchingly beautiful Marcilla, who’s looking at him. He gets an excellent line where he responds, “She’s looking at you.” The film starts by making you think it’s going in one way, goes a different one, then you realize the first part of the film was setting the stage for the rest. It’s a subtle moment that tells you information without it being narrated or said in dialogue. Some lowlights are the opening narration, which is way less effective than showing what is described in the narration. There’s also a guy in black on a horse who laughs evilly. It’s never explained what he’s about. If all his scenes were cut, no one would feel anything’s missing, as he’s just laughing on this horse. This film’s main problem consists of its many loose threads, which seem like they were forgotten about.

SPOILERS

Marcilla’s mother, the Countess, says she needs to leave town and asks The General if he’ll take in Marcilla. He agrees. Marcilla seduces the General’s niece, Laura, with it being very, very loosely implied that they had sex. Laura has nightmares and suddenly dies. Marcilla then leaves just as suddenly. A man, Morton, finds the Countess and Marcilla. The Countess does the same thing as last time, though she says her daughter’s name is Carmilla. There’s no explanation as to why a new name is adopted. Morton’s daughter is Emma, who is very similar to Laura. Many might think the first part of the film with Laura was pointless, but those scenes do a good job of telling us what’s ideally supposed to happen. The whole ordeal doesn’t take long for Marcilla to accomplish. This also ensures that time wasn’t wasted there. It’d be unfortunate if the Laura section was the first half of the film, that part is wisely pretty brief.

While Carmilla does seduce and bite Emma, she doesn’t die so soon. It’s not explained why. It’s suggested that Carmilla has to bite her multiple times. Before she can do this, the various deaths here and there make people alert of a vampire and thus, a necklace of a cross is put on Emma’s neck and garlic flowers in her room. We see intelligence on the part of Carmilla. It’s implied she sleeps with the governess of the house, who is starting then, loyal to Carmilla, but can’t stand garlic or other things like a vampire, suggesting she was turned into one.

It’s never really explained what Carmilla’s objective is. According to one character, she just wants to kill, but he could easily be wrong as it’s not explained how he knows this. Also, that answer is really unsatisfying from a storytelling perspective. Give us a reason to feel and care more. We do get a little, tiny taste at the answer. After a maid is convinced to remove the necklace and garlic, Carmilla picks up Emma in the night and says she’s taking her somewhere. Carmilla is nice to her. One of the most frustrating of the loose threads is that we never learn why or where Carmilla wanted to take her as she’s stopped by another character before she can leave the house. Maybe the reason Laura died quickly and Emma didn’t was because Carmilla didn’t want Emma to die. Maybe Carmilla liked Emma. The one time Carmilla sleeps with a man, it’s to make him loyal and she seems disinterested, unlike with the various women she’s with where at least she seems like she’s going to enjoy doing it. When the governess and another character she turns gets in her way, Carmilla kills them without seeming to like them at all. Emma is never turned into a vampire or the vampire-adjacent that the governess was.

The ending is pretty standard for a Hammer Horror. A few of the characters go to the castle where Carmilla came from. Annoyingly, there’s a guy that just tells them a bunch of plot elements. This is basically a narration. He’s just dumping a gallon of exposition on us. While this isn’t explained in this film, a standard part of being a vampire is going back to your coffin to sleep. This has been depicted in countless films. This is seemingly why Carmilla goes back to the castle. A film shouldn’t assume people would know that. An average moviegoer might be confused as to why she did that. The sleeping Carmilla is staked in the heart by The General. We also don’t know what happened to the Countess. Is she just wandering around somewhere? Does she settle down? Who knows?

OVERVIEW

The Vampire Lovers certainly has some good ideas. The underdeveloped and probably rushed plot make the film difficult to engage or appreciate. It’d be nice to have something like a remake that can fix these issues and make a more coherent production.

Blood and Roses (1960) Review

A frame of Marcella from the film

We get a very slow, eye-catching, surreal film in Blood and Roses. Many may watch it and think it’s eventless and boring, but that just adds to the strange nature of the film. You’re on the edge of your seat waiting for what will happen next. The vibrant colors and cinematography by Claude Renoir give an appealing and easy to engage movie. The colors reflect the colorful and strange situation. The protagonist is Marcella, played by Annette Vadim, a beautiful woman that’s a step out of line with everyone. She is very quiet and contemplative throughout the film. Her actress, Annette Stroyberg, goes through subtle changes which can be hard to detect between any two scenes, but they’re still there. Once finishing the film, if one goes back to the beginning, the character is different.

Other actors in the film are good. Even the two child actors effectively give their lines and portray their characters well as imaginative children. The male lead of the film is Mel Ferrer as Leopoldo De Karnstein. He’s a friend of Marcella and he’s going to marry her friend, Georgia. He’s an odd character. He sometimes is very kind, but other times is agitated. Near the beginning, he asks Marcella to go to a party he’s throwing and when she says she doesn’t want to, he gets mad and tells her to go with an angry voice. There’s an implication that he might do something bad if she doesn’t go. No character or plot point brings up his negatives. People that mention him mention his kindness. What’s the point to these moments? Elsa Martinelli is Georgia. She is mainly just the object of desire for characters as she’s very innocent and beautiful. This admittedly simplistic character is still portrayed quite well by Martinelli.

The pacing is very slow. Admittedly, not a lot happens, but there is a method to it. The slow pacing is building this weird, dreamlike film. It is portraying the slow madness of the whole thing. Slow scenes show how characters are thinking and what they’re doing, which pays off around the end when the climax hits. The point of the film is to see how our characters act and why.

SPOILERS

In the beginning, some characters are discussing vampires, Marcella is present. We get some foreshadowing when a character assumes that a vampire would be male. It’s relayed that about two-hundred years ago, all the vampires were killed by the people they were stalking. One may have escaped. A little bit later, guess what Marcella finds in a secret room of a castle? The vampire is female and Marcella looks like her. Some have said that Marcella is killed here and replaced by the vampire, Carmilla, but that wasn’t made very clear. Marcella acts increasingly agitated in the film. If Carmilla immediately replaced her, you’d think she’d act completely differently as we’re now dealing with a different person, but the slow transition makes one think Marcella is slowly being turned.

Vadim does a great job of showing her turns. Marcella’s progressively losing herself. She’s drawn to this beautiful white dress Carmilla wore and walks around in it. As if the dress represents her loss of control and humanity. Blood and Roses has some Lesbian subtext, just like in Dracula’s Daughter. While Carmilla was said to be with a man, perhaps Marcella overpowers this a bit or Carmilla didn’t like the man. There’s a scene of her chasing a girl, brilliantly executed with no cuts and no music, perhaps to suggest she’s looking for women, even though she’s not supposed to. However, one character, who has embellished stories of his to children, says that female vampires only go for female victims. While perhaps he was knowingly lying, why show that scene anyways? Why do female vampires go for women? Are they all Lesbians? What if this film is using female vampires as a metaphor for Lesbians? “Lesbians only go for female victims.” There could be an insinuation that Lesbians are vicious and predatory or they’re perceived that way.

At one point in the film, Marcella sees she’s bleeding when she looks in a mirror, but she’s not bleeding when she looks down at herself. She’s panicked by this. If vampires are a metaphor for Homosexuals, than the vampiristic blood would represent the gay desires she wants to suppress. She’s also bleeding from where her heart is, adding to this. Later on, Leopoldo kisses Marcella, while she doesn’t reject it, she doesn’t initiate it or show signs of being thrilled by it. Here, a man is appealing to her and her facial expression suggests, “Whatever.” Leopoldo is also cheating on his fiancée here, suggesting this is something you’re not supposed to like as it’s betrayal. This scene repeats itself when Georgia is disturbed by how strangely Marcella is acting. Ultimately, Marcella goes in and kisses Georgia. The vampire is going for the woman too innocent and kind, who is the object of desire, the prize. Georgia is “betraying” Leopoldo by not stopping this as soon as it happens, but this is also another representation of needing to let yourself free. Leopoldo does it to Marcella who does it to Georgia. I don’t care if this is wrong, I just got to! The two are interrupted before we see what Marcella would do next, but I’m driven crazy thinking about what Marcella’s objective was? Would she bite Georgia? Would she try to have sex with her? What?!

Georgia dreams later, among other things, the dream features Georgia and Marcella dancing. This may represent Georgia’s desires for Marcella as well. The scene of them dancing is beautiful. The dream sequence is especially striking as when it starts, the color film turns to black and white, but we see the color red, signifying blood and the heart. Georgia wakes up convinced Marcella will die. Not long afterwards, she falls on a stake wearing the dress and accidentally impales her heart. This film leaves you wondering how much of it is a dream or imagined, with some saying it all is. Some say that Marcella simply thinks she’s a vampire, but is not in actuality. Some say it’s all straightforward. Any possibility seems possible and like it could work in the story. If it’s a dream, it’s probably the dream of Georgia or Marcella, which makes the film even gayer as they’re dreaming about being together. If it’s straightforward, we’re still seeing this tortured soul who doesn’t know what to do. How does she act with Georgia or Leopoldo?

If it’s a delusion of Marcella, it leads to quandering. “What’s the fuel for it all?” In the beginning, Marcella looks in the direction of Leopoldo and Georgia and seems infatuated. There’s a bit of ambiguity as to who she’s looking at. Characters often say in the film that Marcella is in love with Leopoldo, but if the film is Marcella’s embellishing mind, then the story is her scream that this is not the case, that it’s actually Georgia she loves. When Leopoldo kisses Marcella, if she loved him, she could’ve just kept kissing him and possibly do more. She never initiates something with him. It appears metaphoric that everyone perceives her as loving Leopoldo, when the truth is that she loves the person right by him. The vampire looking like Marcella could suggest that one’s feelings and instincts never die. They’ll hide away, but they’re always there and they might come out at times.

OVERVIEW

Blood and Roses is a classy affair. It paints in blurry lines and gives you a lot to think about while still delivering an engaging and easy to follow story with drama, suspense, and little music, but the music present is a very pretty Harp score.