Cowboys and Aliens (and Vampires.) Oh My!

A movie a week in an actual theater, two weeks in a row! This sets a recent record for me as I mostly catch up with new movies on those little silver disks.

But last week a preview screening pass came my way for a film I probably wouldn't have paid to see, and this week I became concerned that a cross-genre movie would be out of the theater before I saw it if I waited too much longer.

Because of my title choice we'll take this week’s movie first, and it is indeed COWBOYS AND ALIENS. Now how exactly does one approach reviewing this sort of film? How seriously should one take it? Well, one should not apply the same critical yardstick used for 'heavy' films to those which are 'light' entertainment, nor should one take them too seriously.

The main questions I ask myself after screening such a film, though, are the same ones I ask myself for any movie. What was the intention of the creators of the film, how well did they succeed in carrying out those intentions, and what did I get from the viewing experience.

While a really complex and deep movie can make it difficult to be sure you can answer the first of these, escapist films can almost always have their intention summed up with a sentence beginning "Give my audience a good time by..." In the case of COWBOYS AND ALIENS, it could be completed with "presenting an adventure film that blends traditional elements of a Western and an alien invasion SF story into a fast moving action adventure with enough credibility that the speed of the events presented will hold off plot related objections at least until the viewer is on their way through the theater parking lot to their car."

I felt that more the most part, the film makers met the intentions that I have outlined.

Whether you should see this film probably can be determined by your reaction to the title. If you thought "You've got to be kidding," you are probably not an ideal screening candidate. If, on the other hand, you thought, "Cool! That sounds like fun," you may be in the creators target audience.

Inspired by a graphic novel of the same name (but using not much beyond the title for that inspiration), COWBOYS AND ALIENS opens with Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) regaining consciousness in the desert, with no memory, a mysterious bloody wound in his side, and an even more mysterious metallic device attached to his forearm. A brief run-in with a family of bounty hunters shows us just how dangerous he is. He makes his way to the town of Absolution where he meets a number of the locals and before long is in the middle of an alien invasion, with space craft swooping down and pulling many of the local citizenry aboard via long whip-like tentacles. There is, of course, much more to the events that unfold, but I don't want to do more than offer a taste of what to expect.

Pluses: A good cast of actors, giving credibility to underwritten characters; a mostly fast moving story that the writers and director rarely allow to drag; good technical effects, both in the spacecraft and alien creatures, which reminded me (in execution if not appearance) of those in DISTRICT 9; a good orchestral score combining traditional Western and SF stylings in a way that also keeps things moving along.

Minuses: Too much character "development" via genre shorthand; not much in real surprise (although the plot driven suspense works pretty well any way - if you let it); one younger character who is portrayed as such a dislikable idiot that his redemption is simply not believable, in spite of actor Harrison Ford's best effort to sell it.

Should you see it? Go by your reaction to the title. I did and had a reasonably good time.

Last week I saw the remake of the 1985 film FRIGHT NIGHT. I had not planned on rushing out to catch it because I greatly enjoyed the original and had very low expectations for a remake.

But I had a free pass and free is free!

For those of you who were not of movie going-age when the original cam out (and have not caught up with it since), writer/director Tom Holland's FRIGHT NIGHT '85 tells the story of teenager Charley Brewster, who comes to believe (and with good reason) that his next door neighbor Jerry is a vampire. When he gets no help from his girl friend, his buddy "Evil" Ed, or his mother, Charley decides to the only vampire killer he knows: Peter Vincent, host of the local late night horror movie show, "Fright Night." As you might guess from this brief description, the film was pretty tongue-in-cheek, but it also had its share of suspense, scares and low-tech gore. Additionally, it had a terrific performance by Roddy McDowell as Vincent, and good performance by the rest of the cast. I've always considered it a minor classic, at least of its time.

So what has Hollywood done to this 25+ year old film? I shuddered to think, but the answer is, by and large, not all that much. Most of the changes involved updating language usage, attitudes and technology. The biggest single change was to avoid today's twenty-somethings asking "what's a late night TV horror movie host?" So this movie's Peter Vincent (David Tennant) is the star of a Las Vegas magic show featuring vampires - which also happens to be called "Fright Night."

Pluses: Not a stomach churner - restrained, gore-wise at least by today's standards; good acting in general with Colin Farrell a standout as Jerry, the vampire; retains the basic story and characters of the original and does fairly intelligent "updates' where appropriate - shouldn't completely horrify fans of the original; Reasonable running time - IMDB gives 106 minutes for both 1985 and 2011 versions (Too many modern films outstay their welcome!).

Cons: The screening I saw was in 3-D, and while it was not badly executed, it adds nothing to the film; a really SERIOUS "charm" deficit (while the update of the Peter Vincent character was logical and well acted, the character had a negative impact on the film's overall likability.)

I enjoyed the remake of FRIGHT NIGHT more than I expected to. (Enjoying it at all, would have done that!) That said, while the acting, scripting and execution of FRIGHT NIGHT '11 are perfectly acceptable, the big gaping hole in the movie for me is its absence of whimsy and charm. Both of those elements were in the original in large part due to the portrayal of Peter Vincent by Roddy McDowell. Alas they represent qualities that do not generally seem to be valued by either current film makers or viewer.

It's their loss.

If you want an entertaining, briskly paced, horror thriller with pre-Twilight vampires, you could do worse.

Is it still a spoiler if everybody knows it?

Over at the Nitrateville classic film forum, a battle is raging on whether the cover of a new Blu-ray edition of the silent version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925/1929) is a spoiler or not. I'd link you to the discussion, and not to the home page of the site, but the thread starts with a BIG image of the cover which features the title in large letters and a full face image of Lon Chaney, Sr. as the Phantom.

Unmasked.

Now some of you who are silent film aware, or have been around long enough to have sharpened your horror movie teeth on issues of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND, might say "So?"

My contention is that the image used is ill-advised. If the person picking up the cover has managed to escape seeing the Phantom's face, one of the big dramatic scenes of the film will, for them, probably lack its intended impact. Even if that person has seen the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical, or one of the later film versions of Gaston Leroux's tale, and they know that the Phantom wears his mask to hide deformity, they will miss out on experiencing Lon Chaney's makeup masterpiece in context - where it is much more effective than it is as a selling point on the Blu-ray box.

The consensus on Nitrateville seems to be that "every one's already seen that," but it's still a spoiler to me.

And don't tell any of your friends who haven't seen CITIZEN KANE what "Rosebud" is, either!