The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Released in a glorious year that also saw my shining soul gifted to the world, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is the film that you already know all about. Initially a stage show, the success of the film started to grow and grow when it became an adored audience participation event.

I have walked by theatres that were putting on a production of the show, admiring all of the audience members in their variety of costumes (wearing everyday clothes to one of the shows would surely leave you sticking out like a sore thumb), and I am aware of the various cues that get the audience involved with the unfolding events on stage/screen. It looks as if every fan has a bloody good time, letting their hair down and just enjoying the company of kindred spirits who are all there for the full experience.

This is why I have watched the movie about three times now, with this being my third viewing. And, I'm sorry for those who are about to be upset with me, I still don't enjoy it.

Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) are a pair of young lovebirds who end up stranded on a dark and stormy night, leading to them asking for help at the home of Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry). It's a very special night for the doctor and his friends, and Brad and Janet may wish they had never crossed over his doorstep.

Okay, I wasn't entirely honest when I said that I don't enjoy this movie. There are parts of it that I enjoy. The first 4-5 songs are great. In fact, the film maintains a decent amount of momentum right up until Tim Curry sings the last notes of "Sweet Transvestite". It then dips, before lifting back up again with both "I Can Make You A Man" and "Hot Patootie - Bless My Soul". And then it dips again. And just keeps dipping, slumping further and further down towards a whimper of a finale.

The cast all do well enough, with the three leads all fantastic and nice turns from Richard O' Brien (who wrote the show, and adapted it to the screen with director Jim Sharman), Patricia Quinn, Charles Gray, Nell Campbell, and Meatloaf. Everyone stands in the mighty shadow of Curry, who gives one of his most iconic performances, performing every line with great gusto and a sense that he is savouring the taste of every single syllable.

The big problem here is the material. While it's often said that The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a musical parody tribute to the b-movies that all came before it, I have never found enough here to put it in line with those films. Yes, the silly plot and individual elements here and there will ring a bell to anyone who has watched sci-fi and horror films, particularly from the '50s and '60s, but it's all TOO silly and slapdash to feel like a well-crafted homage. The opening title song and details of the closing sequence aside, there's very little in the main body of the film that feels affectionate or indebted enough to the wealth of source material that O'Brien had to draw on.

Everyone will rush to tell me that I am missing out by not watching this with the intended audience, and it's something I will happily try out one day, but a film should also work as, well, a film. This doesn't. It's not absolutely awful, thanks to a few good songs and that amazing turn from Curry, but I have never thought it as anything great. Which didn't stop me buying it, AND Shock Treatment (an odd sorta-sequel that I will be checking out in the next few weeks, hopefully).

Fans can buy the film here.
American fans can buy it here.

The Box Of Delights (1984)

When I watch The Box Of Delights now I see the varying quality of the special effects, I can't quite block out the acting that often feels both a bit hammy and patronising, and there's a sense that the plotting somehow manages to stretch out material while also not giving viewers enough of the better elements. I see all of those things, despite looking through the muslin sheet of nostalgia draped in front of my eyes. And none of those things bother me. I KNOW a lot of affection for this is the nostalgia, really I do, but taking a step back and looking at The Box Of Delights while trying to keep that muslin sheet out of my eyes is bloody difficult. And, considering how others talk about it, I am not alone here. So let's take this review for what it is, something written about a beloved TV series I cannot bring myself to criticise too harshly. A show that led to six weeks of 8/9-year-old me asking for guaranteed 30 minutes of television time all to myself. A seasonal treat that an entire generation who saw it when it first aired here in the UK now think of as being synonymous with the best of Christmas (a sense of magic, being huddled in a warm home while outside was cold and dark, the BBC providing quality programming). Treat yourselves to both this and the old BBC adaptations of The Chronicles Of Narnia and you have quite a treat for yourself, as far as I am concerned.

Without any further ado, here is the briefest of plot summaries. Devin Stanfield plays Kay Harker, a young boy who is travelling to stay with family during the Christmas break from boarding school. He bumps into an old man (Patrick Troughton) on his journey, unwittingly getting himself involved in an adventure to protect the titular box from the dastardly clutches of Abner Brown (Jonathan Stevens). Brown is being helped by a variety of baddies, including a couple of very shifty men, given the dubious names of Fox Faced Charles (Robert Stephens) and Chubby Joe (Geoffrey Larder), and a woman who used to be Kay's governess at one point (Patricia Quinn). By the end of episode one, Kay is given a hint of what the box can do, but he doesn't really have any idea of how powerful it can be. It allows anyone to shrink in size, to fly, to transform into other animals, to access the past, and more.

Based on the book by John Masefield, a sequel to his book The Midnight Folk, this may hit the ground running and move forward in a way that will have some people scratching their heads, but that isn't to the detriment of the show. While viewers are trying to piece things together, or figure out some gaps in the narrative, director Renny Rye lets the rest unfurl comfortably in between moments that either ratchet up the tension or make use of the latest special effects (for the time). Although dated and sometimes crude now, it's still obvious just what would impress younger viewers back in 1984, and there's a simple beauty to some of the animation work that crops up throughout the series.

There's also a simple beauty to the moments that have stayed so vivid in my memory over the years. Herne The Hunter (Glyn Baker) providing a bit of exposition, the idea of wolves literally following the trail of our reluctant hero, unfriendly rodents of unusual size, and one friendly rodent who seems to be of unusual size only after Harker has used the box to shrink himself, clergymen being whisked away and held captive, and more. The special effects don't actually matter in many of these instances. Once you get on board with the fantastical feeling of the whole story then you start to become engrossed and eager to see what happens in each exciting instalment.

While the cast are all acting in line with the BBC drama approach of the time, especially for this kind of literary adaptation (children's book or not), nobody can really be picked out for stinking up the screen. Stanfield actually does quite a good job of making his posh young character quite likable, and the performances from Troughton and Stevens always emphasise their opposing positions in the camps of good and evil. Stephens and Larder are enjoyably sneaky, Quinn does well with her relatively limited screentime, and everyone else hits their marks and delivers their lines.

I've tried to emphasise the nostalgia factor here, but I have also tried to remind people of how deserving of praise this really is. Effects and visuals will always date, acting styles change throughout the years, but the essence of the story, and the wonderful spirit of the whole thing, remains untarnished, even over three decades later. I can't swear that my high rating will be shared by anyone just discovering the series for the first time. I can, however, say that it reflects my feelings for it, and that it is something I will certainly invest time in whenever I remember to keep a window in my future Christmas schedules.

And let's not forget this theme music.

 8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life (1983)

I have a bizarre viewing relationship with this, the last, Monty Python movie. I first saw it many years ago and quite enjoyed it. I was young, there were many jokes that I didn't get, but it had enough amusing moments to keep me entertained. Just. Then I saw it as an adult and enjoyed it a lot more. I'm sure that I even thought those who criticised it were being unduly harsh. On a recent rewatch, with me still being an adult (I haven't suddenly developed some kind of Benjamin Button syndrome, despite my moments of immaturity), I have found that I fall in line with the majority. The Meaning Of Life has moments of greatness, but it's far from a great film.

Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, this film suffers from excess in a way that neither of the previous Monty Python features could have tolerated. In fact, one segment entitled "The Crimson Permanent Assurance" almost unbalances the entire thing. The fact that it was directed by Gilliam, who can't seem to align the practical aspects of controlling costs and maximising efficiency alongside the need to express his artistic vision, should come as no surprise to those who have continued to watch the ups and downs of his career.

Putting that segment aside, despite the fact that it comes along at the start of the movie and then interrupts proceedings later on, what else is on offer here? It's very hit and miss. Written and acted, as usual, by the whole troupe - Gilliam, Jones, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin - with supporting turns from Carol Cleveland, Patricia Quinn and a few others, the sketches touch on various aspects of life and humanity. Birth is covered, with the superb song "Every Sperm Is Sacred" being a highlight, war is looked at a couple of times, the significance of our lives (or lack of it) is brilliantly summed up in "The Galaxy Song" (^^^see above^^^), there's the unforgettable sight of a certain Mr. Creosote and, of course, Death makes an appearance towards the end of the movie.

Fans of the Pythons will still find enough to enjoy here. Gilliam gets to throw in some crazy imagery, everyone has at least one scene-stealing moment and the surreal "find the fish" sequence has grown from something that I simply endured to an inspired moment of brilliance that I could probably watch repeatedly without never becoming bored. There are many great lines, but they often happen to be caught amongst many distinctly average, or even unfunny, moments.

I can't say this is a BAD film, and I'd hope that any Monty Python fan would agree, but it's a big step down from the previous movie outings. The BIG laughs are few and far between, though it's important to remember that they are still there, but a lesser Monty Python film is still full of more wit and ideas than a hundred other movies released in the same year.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Pythons-Meaning-Special-Edition/dp/B0001WAGHO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1373148756&sr=8-4&keywords=monty+python%27s+the+meaning+of+life

The Lords Of Salem (2012)

Damn you, Rob Zombie, damn you. It's okay to make mistakes, it's okay to fall while stretching beyond your normal reach, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating when the end result is such a mess. I always think that a discussion of any Rob Zombie movie somehow requires an opening statement making clear exactly where I stand on the filmography of the man. I loved House Of 1000 Corpses and I loved The Devil's Rejects, and then it started to slip and slide downhill. I actually enjoyed the Halloween remake and I thought The Haunted World Of El Superbeasto was as hilarious as it was juvenile. It all started to go wrong with Halloween II (which I still gave a respectable 6/10). The Lords Of Salem is, without a doubt, his worst movie. The fact that it's so unoriginal isn't a problem. The other movies that he's done have all allowed Zombie to wear his influences on his sleeve. It's the fact that is so unoriginal without his own twist on the material, the fact that it's so visually inept and ugly and the fact that it's just inexcusably dull from start to finish. Zombie shows no progression whatsoever as an artist, and has actually gone backwards since his fantastic debut feature.

The story is all about a radio DJ named Heidi (Sheri Moon Zombie) who receives a record from a mystery band, simply calling themselves "the lords". When she plays the record she starts to feel funny, eventually experiencing strange visions that may be flashbacks to more violent time in Salem's dark history. Her colleagues (played by Jeff Daniel Phillips and Ken Foree) don't really notice anything unusual initially, but as things get worse they start to worry that Heidi has gone back to a drug habit after a long period of being clean. The one person who starts to piece things together is Francis Matthias (Bruce Davison), a bit of an expert in the local history. Unfortunately, Heidi is soon being "looked after" by three women (Judy Geeson, Dee Wallace and Patricia Quinn) and she seems to be heading towards some big trouble.

There are some individual, good moments in The Lords Of Salem. It's not an irredeemable disaster, and it's not something that I'll refuse to ever rewatch, but those overlooking the many major flaws to praise it as Rob Zombie's homage to Euro-horrors are setting a lot of future newcomers up for a big fall. Zombie himself described it (in this clip) "as if Ken Russell directed The Shining" and mentions Polanski as another influence. He's not actually far off the mark, but none of those filmmakers would have a transition quite as clumsy as the sequence that introduces Heidi's place of work and colleagues and treats the audience like hyperactive children. Frustratingly, he shows in some other shots that he can do much better. Some moments do have a nice, controlled approach to both the shot composition and camera movement, but it's usually not long until he slips back into his old habits.

A lot of detractors of the film, or Zombie in general, have been quick to criticise Sheri Moon Zombie in the lead role. She's not that bad. Indeed, none of the actors (many of whom are firm favourites among horror fans, surprise surprise) do a bad job. Geeson, Wallace and Quinn, in particular, provide the most fun and seem to attack their roles with relish. Meg Foster also appears in a small, but vital, role and Sid Haig and Michael Berryman put in cameo appearances.

The soundtrack is pretty good, with one or two standout tracks, and the quality of the sound design serves as a reminder that this is a film from a man who knows what he's doing by now (in terms of the basic technical aspects, at least).

I enjoyed a few scenes, I was impressed by one or two creepy moments and in the first half hour of the film I was hoping that it would improve and build to something truly memorable. That didn't happen. The fact that it all came so completely undone didn't make me angry, it just left me disappointed. Other people already gave up on Rob Zombie a few years ago, but I keep giving him one more chance. I know that he's capable of some great stuff. The Lords Of Salem sees him trying hard to refute that.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lords-Salem-Sheri-Moon-Zombie/dp/B00BIODT0A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370338335&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lords+of+salem