Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

A hallmark of Rock and Roll music, The Beatles will most definitely be remembered in the history of 20th century music, and Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band will likely be remembered as their magnum opus (I prefer the White Album myself, or Revolver, but that’s just me.) While many of their contemporaries are fading into nostalgia, the Beatles’ music has retained a timeless feel that has them rediscovered by generation after generation, either through video games, or through movies, such as Across the Universe.



I didn’t much care for Across the Universe when it first came out. I appreciate Julie Taymor as a director, her version of Titus was great, for example. But the movie was ham-handed about its anti-war agenda, about 45 minutes too long, and tried too hard to use a lot of the Dada-esque John songs and not enough of the more straightforward Paul songs. I actually like all the songs they picked more, but they weren’t suited to constructing a cogent narrative. Which led to numbers like Eddie Izard singing “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” in a circus.



This is the moment where me and this movie stopped agreeing on what a musical based on the Beatles should be about (if you want an exact moment in this video, it was probably around 45 seconds, where I thought to myself “okay, now stuff’s just happening. Thank you, movie.”) I was not pleased with this movie, to put it lightly.



Then I watched Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Released in 1978, and produced by Robert Stigwood (the guy who produced Grease and Saturday Night Fever, so he at least has some good sense about how music can be used in a movie,) the titular band is made up of Peter Frampton and the Bee-Gees, is based loosely on the album and Abbey Road, and contains almost no non-singing dialogue except on the part of our narrator, played by George Burns, who tries to help piece together a plot about the Band being manipulated by music executive Mr. Mustard (who, if you are not aware, is not a very nice guy at all.) This is a blessing since we don’t have to deal with as much “real” acting from the Bee-Gees and Frampton.

They aren’t the only musicians in the movie: Alice Cooper plays Father Sun (he sings a rather bizarre version of “Because;”) Earth Wind and Fire play themselves (they do a good cover of “Got to Get You Into My Life,” and might be one of the few redeeming features of the film, besides a performance I’ll mention below;) and Aerosmith are the Future Villain Band (foreshadowing their career-that-wouldn’t-die of the mid-90’s and stretched on to today, they perform “Come Together.”)



The movie is punctuated heavily by scenes randomly sped-up (reminiscent of A Hard Day’s Night,) which is a a cute technique, along with the white superimposed inter-titles, but the filmmaker manages to grab it by the throat and drag it into the ground so often that you can’t help but wonder if they were trying to intentionally make an awful movie.

There’s a point where reasoning breaks down for me. Where any attempt to find anything redeeming becomes an increasingly daunting and depressing challenge bordering on the absurd. I would compare finding the bad in this movie as to finding a needle in a haystack, but that’s not a fair comparison. Trying to find the bad in this movie is like trying to find the hay in a haystack. And not just any hay, but one particular piece, and it’s lost in the sea of the same hay. If the bad were like a needle (or needles) in a haystack, at least then you could find something differentiated and go “Oh, here is your problem. This.” But this entire movie is the movie’s problem.

Steve Martin, by the way, is in this movie. Steve Martin. Because when I think of The Beatles, the first thing that comes to my mind is Steve Martin.



I have to admit this is pretty funny. Perhaps if this was the only thing the movie was then I would not be as upset about it. And then he’s gone. You cry out for Steve Martin to come back, but he’s gone, and he’s left you with an awful, awful, movie.

The rest of the movie has the same frantic nonsensical construction, but its mostly taking itself serious to levels that seem to border on the absurd. But there is no scene that doesn’t in some way awkwardly crumble, look poorly constructed, or just messy. George Burns at times looks amazed he is even in this movie.

The movie ends with a bunch of celebrities singing the reprise of the title track and posing in a manner reminiscent of the album cover. These include such 70’s luminaries as Heart, Leif Garret, Carol Channing, Bonnie Raitt, Minnie Ripperton, Tina Turner, Hank Williams Jr., Curtis Mayfield, and, of course, Sha-Na-Na. Wolfman Jack is there too, perhaps imagining this is the next American Graffiti. Unfortunately for the Wolfman, it is not.

This movie was apparently so bad that it bankrupted Robert Stigwood’s production company, and the Bee-Gee’s eventually sued him over royalties related to it. If I were them I’d suddenly be worried about the money running out too.

This movie is not redeemable, even for its camp value. It’s not “awesomely bad” or “so bad its good,” it’s just plain bad. I thought I knew what an awful movie was before seeing this movie, but it actually transcends narrative, filmmaking, and manages to defile the canon of one of the greatest rock bands of all time. I would not recommend it to anyone, to watch under any circumstances, even for a morbid curiosity to see how bad it is (which is why I watched it.) Do not watch this movie. I’ll repeat that. If you value your sanity, or think fondly of the Beatles in any way, do yourself a favor and not watch this movie. If you want to see a Beatles musical, see Across the Universe. Or wait for somebody to make a really good one.

It’s become increasingly obvious the more I think about it that, if only to avoid the possibility of having to endure a third Beatles music within the next 30 years, to create some kind of guidelines for future generations, taking on the problems of the problems of the 1978 and 2008 Beatles musicals. So take heed, filmmakers of tomorrow:

1) Try to draw more focus on the earlier pre-Sgt Pepper’s Beatles, and, if you do use the more psychedelic Beatles songs, focus more on Paul’s stuff (“Here Comes the Sun” would be fine too, “Octopus’ Garden” likely wouldn’t.) John’s songs aren’t very complimentary to narrative, and you end up with bizarre interludes. Under no circumstances is “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” to be used. Ever. “Strawberry Fields Forever” is a borderline case, because it isn’t as jarringly non-narrative as John’s other songs, but in both Across the Universe and Sgt. Pepper’s it gets used as an utterly dreadful ballad. But I think it could work.

2) Thematic diversity. Both films have a problem with taking a single issue and more or less defining the entire movie around it. Sgt. Pepper’s is about the corrupting nature of fame and power, while Across the Universe is an anti-war movie. There needs to be some variation, maybe a strong subplot not tied into that theme, or else try to create some more conflict with the theme (both of the above things are presented as bad, understandably, but that removes 99% of the conflict from the story. There needs to be disagreement and synthesis of ideas.) Otherwise it just becomes an overpowering series of intertwined Beatles songs.

3) Self-referential comments need to be low, if not to a minimum. The Beatles are such an integral part of pop culture that it’s easy to put references to characters or lines into the script. But it’s also really easy to go overboard with it too, because there’s so many iconic lines and characters. Across the Universe goes especially overboard with this, with every major character being named after some Beatles song or another. It’s ok to have a few characters that aren’t named after the songs, or to keep spouting random bits of Beatles lore. This makes the movie actually about something other than the songs, which, as important as they are to a musical, are not the entirety of the film.

4) Not every song needs to be on the nose about what it’s about, but at the same time, don’t attribute completely new meaning to a song. The first problem is “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” always been used as a part of a circus number (Sgt. Pepper’s including two guys in a rollerskating horse costume as Henry the Horse. I wish I were making that up.)

The best example of the opposite problem I can think of is “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)” which in both films gets used in drastically different ways. In Sgt. Pepper’s it’s about the music people lusting after the band and the dangers of fame. In Across the Universe...

Yeah, heavy-handed much?

5) Actually, maybe just don’t make a musical about the Beatles, especially “based on the music of…” and save everybody involved a lot of trouble.

The Princess and The Frog

Try and remember the last great Disney animated film that didn’t begin with that jumping Pixar lamp. This will probably vary depending on your tastes. For me, it was Lilo and Stitch, although I would consider Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan acceptable answers as well. This is not to say there’s anything technically or story-deficient in anything post, say, 2000 in non-Pixar Disney animated films. They just seem to be going through the motions, perhaps hitting a few clever notes but not getting into really solid territory.



The Princess and the Frog is probably not the greatest Disney film ever. But it’s good, exceeding expectations and harkening back to the better days of the Disney Renaissance (having the directors of The Little Mermaid doesn’t hurt that fact.)

There’re a lot of headier issues we could delve into here about representations of race and class in the context of 1920’s New Orleans (and what racism is acknowledged and how much is not.) Especially in terms of swarthy Lothario Prince Naveen’s fictional nation with European trappings yet just brown-enough skin to keep any Middle-American concern for interracial relationships somewhat at ease. But I haven’t invested the level of engagement to get to that point with the text yet, and we can definitely discuss this over in the comments.

That being said, I think, overall, there’s a good balance between trying to represent the particularities of New Orleans culture and the 1920s without going too deeply into stereotype or heavily covering up the issues of the time.

The story is, for delving into the rather limited Frog Princess story, rather deep, and there’s a lot of good characterization and flow. The overall messages of the movie, about self-determination and hard work, are definitely a step above waiting for an arriving prince, or even the non-descript “wanting more” of the Disney Renaissance princesses. The music also is probably the strongest since Beauty and the Beast and ties in very well with enforcing the messages of the movie while being good songs in their own right.

I have a soft spot in my heart for the Disney villains. As appropriate to melodrama, the richest and most nuanced characters are at times the more villainous ones. So, while at times a bit creepy, and overly theatrical, Disney villains get a chance to be the decadent and dark id to the Disney superego. And Doctor Facilier, the voodoo houngan who curses Naveen and desires a social status denied to him due to his heritage, could easily make #10 of my personal top Disney villains list. Being voiced by the rumbly baritone Keith David (perhaps best known as Goliath on Gargoyles, or for his part in They Live,) definitely helps.



The Princess and the Frog is, in my opinion, definitely the best animated non-Pixar Disney movies of the past decade (unless you include Enchanted, at which point it’s a strong #2,) and possibly the best since The Lion King. It’s a pretty strong movie with a great narrative thread. You shouldn’t be troubled taking your kids to the movie, and it has a strong appeal for all ages.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

The second film in the Twilight series, appropriately enough titled The Twilight Saga: New Moon, came out over Thanksgiving. For those of you for whom this is news, allow me to welcome you to back from the rock you’ve been under.



Before getting too deep into this, I’m going to say that I have not read the books, nor do I have any intention of ever reading them.

I addressed the primary issue I have with the Twilight mythos in my article about vampire movies. I find that the kinds of vampires present in Twilight seem too awesome for their own good: beautiful pallid immortal superhuman creatures that glitter in the sunlight and blessed with a collection of powers and a weakness to being ripped apart and set on fire (a weakness which most of us non-immortal non-superhumans have as well.) It sort of ends of playing out like somebody’s game of Vampire: The Masquerade gone horribly awry.

I would try to avoid putting spoilers here, but, really, I doubt I could even if I tried. The story, excised of it’s supernatural elements, is all very much a staple of melodrama: Edward and his love Bella are torn apart, there is some romantic tension between Bella and her friend Jacob (played by Taylor “Sharkboy” Lautner,) circumstances and misunderstandings lead to a potential catastrophe that has to be solved by Edward and Bella reuniting, and then Bella then has to choose between Edward and Jacob. Adding in some scenes with werewolves, vampires, and many shots of shirtless men, this takes about two hours to unfold.

The movie was professionally made, and not lacking in technical execution, although I think Twilight was made better, at the very least it captured the kind of fervent young obsessive attractions that make up most high school romances. Sure, there’s a lot of topless male parading going on is this movie (especially from “Sharkboy”) but it didn’t seem to capture the same kind of madness Twilight did. As someone who hasn’t read the books, I’m still curious just exactly what is coming from this series: I feel as though I’ve watched two movies that seem to be setting up for something later on, and in the interim I find it very hard to actually care about any of the characters or wait long enough for this set-up to pay off into something.

I would probably wait to rent this movie, although I imagine the target demographic wouldn’t mind the chiseled male forms projected to the size they are on a big screen. I don’t think you actually need to see the first movie to make sense of this one (it does make reference to events from the first, naturally, but nothing so complex that you couldn't figure it out without having seen it.)

I’ll be giving the film a proper review in a week on 11 Word Movie Reviews.

Addendum

I just saw a movie the other day that I did not, by any stretch of the imagination, expect to like. But it would be more than a worthy addition to my list of vampire movies that don't suck.



Vampire in Brooklyn should be an awful movie. It has 11% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 4.3 on IMDB. It has Eddie Murphy in it, a man whose movies are alternatively comedic masterpieces or soul-crushingly dreadful. It's directed by the similarly hit-and-miss Wes Craven (who, despite being the horror director who gave the world Scream trilogy and the Nightmare on Elm Street series also gave us Cursed and the original iterations of The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left.) It's a horror-romance-comedy about a Carribean vampire who is hunting for one woman to keep his race alive. It has Murphy inhabiting multiple rolls (the vampire, a preacher, and an Italian mafioso.)


This isn't a masterpiece, but it's a good vampire movie. I really enjoyed it, and I think you should give it a chance. It's currently on HBO, and is on demand, and I bet any reputable DVD rental source should have a copy sitting somewhere. It isn't as awful to watch, as say, Norbit, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, or any other number of bad Eddie Murphy movies that one can immediately think of offhand...

Nosferatu

Happy Halloween everybody, goblins and ghouls, courtesy of Son of Double Feature!

In my previous post, I mentioned F.W. Murnau's classic 1922 film Nosferatu. While doing some research on a new spec screenplay (I might post details after I get a draft together and register it with the WGA) I found out that Nosferatu is in the public domain in the United States.

I found this through Archive.org. And now, without further adieu, Nosferatu!

My Top 11 Vampire Movies That Don’t Suck

In honor of the re-appropriated pagan fertility festival-turned-candy frenzy known as Halloween, and the 13 days of Halloween reviews going on at 11 Word Movie Reviews, I have decided to put together a list of my favorite 11 vampire movies.


I’m going to immediately note that Twilight isn’t on this list. Although Stephanie Meyer’s Romeo and Juliet with sparkly bloodsucking undead is very popular with the kids right now, it’s literally defanged a lot of the menace of the vampire in fiction. Where once the horror of a creature that infects its victims with an uncontrollable lust that consumes its life and destroys those around it, has been thoroughly sanitized and presented as benign or (overly) sympathetic. This is not to say Twilight isn’t a fine dark fantasy romantic melodrama, but the vampiric Cullen clan could have easily been mutants or demons than the walking dead, and a lot of the flavor and weaknesses of the vampire have been tweaked or outright forgotten, so I don’t think of it as a particularly good example of vampire movies.

But the Twilight brood isn’t the only example of watered-down vampires, be they cereal mascots:



Vegetarian duck vampires:

Count Duckula actually has very little to do with this article. I just like him.

And, of course, we can’t forget when Leslie Nielsen was Dracula: Dead and Loving It:


The vampire story, overall, is so ingrained in the contemporary mindset, most films (and TV series) are variations on the theme, or mocked for comedy (like the example above, and some below.) A lot of the rankings here have to do with technical quality and personal preference than anything else.

Here are 11 good movies that capture the terror (and perhaps, the comedic neuroses) that come from being one of the children of the night:

11. Interview with the Vampire


Interview was the pendulum swing that sent popular culture to the romantic vampire. With famously handsome actors like Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise it’s of little surprise this happened. It’s actually a very engaging movie, and brought about the big resurgence of vampire fiction in the early 90’s (which more than a few of my friends were into.)

10. Once Bitten


Jim Carrey became an A-list star after Ace Ventura, but few remember his pre-In Living Color career. Mostly with good reason. (That’s unkind, I actually really like Earth Girls are Easy.) Once Bitten in hindsight feels like someone desperately trying to paddle after the Teen Wolf wave, in which teenaged Carrey is threatened with vampirism by a seductive (what we would call now) cougar. It’s not so much wacky as it is a teen-friendly pseudo-comedy about vampires.

9. 30 Days of Night



I believe the in 30 Second Reenacted by Bunnies did this far better than I could ever hope to.

8. Nosferatu: Phantom Der Nacht


An adaptation of F.W. Murnau’s classic, Klaus Kinski gives an amazing performance as the titular bloodsucker. Werner Herzog is one of the bolder German directors out there, and he manages to find quite a lot of thematic material to work with here.

7. Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust


NERD ALERT!

Dark, visceral, fun. ‘Nuff said.

6. Blackula



I have a soft spot in my heart for exploitation movies. So in the little Venn diagram of my fascination with horror and my love of exploitation movies (amongst many other topics,) Blackula falls square in the middle. It has action, adventure, romance, and black vampires! Ok, really, all it has is black vampires. But still, I like it.

5. Buffy the Vampire Slayer


Joss Whedon is my hero.

That is all.

4. Nosferatu


If we’re going to talk about German Expressionism, this is one of the movies I’d actually want to discuss. F.W. Murnau is one of the best directors to come out of the movement and this is my favorite. Nosferatu is so dark and moody and complex that it really manages to hit all the emotional notes while trying really hard not to pay the Bram Stoker estate anything.

3. Dracula (1992)


Not a lot of people have affection for the Coppola version. I’ve expressed how awesome I think Gary Oldman is before, and will leave it at that. And, barring Keanu Reeve’s kind of minimalist accent, the movie is quite strong and a very faithful adaptation. It’s got great production values, good script, and a lot of amazing performances.

2. Shadow of the Vampire


Take the concept “What if Max Schrek, who played Nosferatu in the Murnau movie, really was a vampire?” and bring in some of the finest American actors of our time (and Willem Dafoe, sorry Willem,) and what do you get? Simply put, a great movie.

1. Dracula (1933)


Okay, honestly, did you expect anything else but this? It’s the quintessential vampire movie. Bela Lugosi’s best performance, and it’s nothing short of inspired. It’s probably the reason we as a culture on occasion go batty for vampires.

So, if you’re going to catch The Vampire’s Assistant, watch True Blood or Vampire Diaries, or catch the Twilight sequel New Moon, here are 11 vampire movies that are pretty choice...


But you don’t have to take MY word for it. DA DUN DUN!

Fever Night

Fever Night
(aka A Band of Satanic Outsiders)


Initial Disclaimer: This movie was produced by some fellow UCSB alumni, and very good friends of mine. I’m going to try my best to be objective and think of this outside of my prior relationship to the filmmakers, but, just in case I ever smack of favoritism, keep that in mind.

Initial Tangent: Support local and indie filmmakers! See small unknown movies, even if they aren’t by your friends.

I’ve reviewed some questionable horror films on this blog in the past. Fever Night (Schrader and Harris, 2009) is definitely not questionable in terms of scope, ambition, or general production skill. The story deals with three friends getting lost in the woods and their encounters with strange and disturbing forces of darkness. It evokes the same ‘70’s B-Movie exploitation aesthetic tapped in Grindhouse, up to and including the 1970s Warner Bros logo. But, like the aforementioned Tarentino-Rodriguez collab, it brings a lot more to the table to literate film afficionados.

Although to anyone thinking about it, the choices of locations, amount of actors, and general production aesthetic scream low budget, it definitely doesn’t seem like it was shot on the cheap. The visuals were crisp and very aesthetically pleasing (or displeasing as was required,) the soundtrack was great, and the cast generally gave great performances.

The script for me is a mixed bag. The dialogue and characterization are great, and there are some very interesting payoffs and structuring devices used. However, I feel parts of it for me got lost, possibly in editing; I was at times genuinely confused about just what I was seeing and what was supposed to be going on. However, it was not the bad kind of confused that makes me want to stop watching the movie, but definitely kept me intrigued for more. I’m still not entirely sure what happened in parts of the movie, but it kept my interest and kept me emotionally involved, if confused.

So, if Fever Night is playing in a theater near you, I’d wholeheartedly recommend it, especially if you’re a big exploitation horror buff. It’s a loving tribute, and you can definitely sense the affection towards the source influences. Overall, I’d give it a B.