The Return of Angela

In the world of “film as art” it is not a popular notion to comment positively about a slasher/dead teenager movie, especially a sequel to a slasher/dead teenager movie. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert coined the term, “dead teenager movie” back in the early 1980’s when a myriad of “Friday the 13th”/”Halloween” clones were being produced, so, being a perfect term for these films, I have adopted it. The first “Sleepaway Camp” movie succeeded in creating a bizarre world for us to enter, one that, despite being about the 46th film up to that point in 1983 that had been set at a summer camp, still managed to entertain thanks mostly to the casting of Felissa Rose as the quiet and shy Angela, but also thanks to the probably unintentionally strange pacing of the film. It felt like a gen-u-wine low-budget horror film and it worked very well. I was not expecting much from the 1988 sequel, “Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers,” by then somewhere around the 195th film to be set at a summer camp, however, I was pleasantly surprised by this film, directed by Michael A. Simpson.

Pamela Springsteen, sister of Bruce and now a still photographer, does a great job of playing an older version of Angela, a version that has undergone the necessary amount of therapy to be allowed to be a counselor at a camp, a camp that is only 65 miles from the one at which Angela completed her handiwork in the first film. Yes, that’s right, this is a silly horror film, but, like the first film, for a silly horror film it works nicely. Pamela Springsteen is great as the insane Angela who despite belting out a lovely song about how fun camp can be and despite her overwhelmingly chipper nature is quite obviously disturbed. Angela is not pleased to know that some of the campers at Camp Rolling Hills are engaging in such things as sex. From the first film, we have learned things about Angela that I will not reveal here as some readers may not have yet seen the first film. Angela is more than a throwaway slasher film character with no personality. As played in the first film by Felissa Rose and in the second film by Pamela Springsteen, Angela is brought to life and is an interesting character to watch. As far as a connection of the character from the first to the second film, it works quite well. I could believe that the Angela from the second film was the same person as the Angela from the first film. This is a notable achievement as, if the character in the second film had seemed distant from that of the first film, it would have taken away quite a bit from the dramatic and suspenseful tension. Yes, I just wrote “dramatic and suspenseful tension” in regards to this film. I’m not changing it. “Sleepaway Camp 2” makes an attempt to incorporate a sense of humor to the proceedings and succeeds occasionally in that regard. My guess is that “Sleepaway Camp 2” is funnier than “Meatballs Part 3,” but I have not seen that entry in the “Meatballs” saga. If you have been lucky enough to see “Meatballs 4,” you may have been pleased to find that it stars Jack Nance, the lead actor from David Lynch’s “Eraserhead” and Sarah “Ursa” Douglas, but it also starred Corey Feldman. No film can be perfect. In the same way, kind of, “Sleepaway Camp 2” is not perfect. Luckily, Corey Feldman is not in it, but it does get very close to reaching slasher movie perfection, which is a different kind of perfection from regular film perfection. You always know what to expect in a slasher film. There will be deaths, mayhem, 27 year old actors playing teenagers having sex, blood, and, if you are lucky, some pretty bad music.

If a slasher film offers something extra, then, in my mind it is better than average. The performance of Pamela Springsteen as Angela and most of the performances of the supporting cast rises above what one may expect from low-budget slasher movie acting. Even though we know Angela is several cashews shy of a full can, I enjoyed every time she was on camera. I usually find it difficult to navigate my way through a conversation that includes my attempt to defend slasher films of the 1980’s. I am a fan of several of these films including “Final Exam,” “Silent Scream,” “Halloween 2 and 3,” “The Pit,” “The Unseen,” and the aforementioned “Sleepaway Camp.” At the same time, I would be perfectly willing to engage you in a conversation about the films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, Woody Allen, Werner Herzog, and Stanley Kubrick. My love of movies is not limited to one or two genres, but just about all genres. I’m not a big fan of the rom-com, but I do not discount the idea that, over the years, there have been some good ones made, such as the wonderful, “The Goodbye Girl,” “When Harry Met Sally,” and “Groundhog Day.” Like it’s predecessor, “Sleepaway Camp 2” was very good for what it sets out to accomplish. It’s not Fellini or Bergman, but it kept me entertained. I think that accepting what you are heading into is important in whether or not one will enjoy a film. If you expect a slasher film from the 80’s to be more than a slasher film from the 80’s, you will likely be disappointed and offended by the kills in the film. If your mindset is such that you know what you are getting yourself into and you end up getting more for your time than a fill in the blank script, you have won. I feel my time with Angela in “Sleepaway Camp 2” was successful and I am looking forward to watching the third film in the series, though, I do not know if lightning can strike twice or if the campfire will burn out……..so…….. Director Simpson mentions in the commentary track for the film that he would not have had any interest in this project if it had been a straight-forward horror film. The humor in the script by Fritz Gordon compelled him to have more of an interest in taking on the directing reigns. Like “Friday the 13th Part 6,” “Sleepaway Camp 2” very much benefits from attempts to include gags throughout the film, not all of which work, but enough do to keep the film from becoming a groanfest. The humor in the film allows it not to take itself too seriously and revel in the otherworldly silliness that these kinds of films inhabit. Slasher films are just as “out there” as science fiction films or fantasy films. Yeah, I know. They involve death and gore, but no film is perfect. One either accepts the nature of horror films or does not. There is not much way around that fact. As someone who enjoys a good horror/slasher film from time to time, I can endorse the above average “Sleepaway Camp 2” as a film that tries hard and most of the time succeeds in being entertaining thanks mostly to it’s strong performances and brisk pacing.

This May Be the Disney Film You Are Looking For

The latest film sensation hitting the internet these days is a movie which was filmed mostly surreptitiously at Disneyworld and Epcot in Florida. The makers of “Escape From Tomorrow” did not seek, nor would have gotten most likely, permission from Disney to make their film there. I would love to hear a director’s commentary for this film. Writer and director, Randy Moore’s account of how this film was made and the stories he has to tell about how and why he made this film may be more interesting than the film itself. The subtext, or what I think is the subtext of the film, is also more interesting than the film as executed. In telling the story of a family that encounters strange and horrific things while on a trip to the aforementioned Disney parks in Florida, Moore tackles themes that he may or may not have intended to handle.

Parents Jim (Roy Abramson) and Emily (Elena Schuber) and their children, Sara and Elliot (Katelynn Rodriguez and Jack Dalton) appear to be laboring to enjoy their last day on their Florida vacation. At the beginning of the film, it is implied in the dialogue that their trip, up to that point, has not been the best, especially with the added news that Jim has been told he has been fired over the phone. The “just the messenger” person who delivers the news over the phone to Jim makes sure to give Jim some advice about what attractions to see while on vacation. I believe that there is definitely an anti-corporate subtext in the film, though, other than this scene in which we learn of Jim’s job loss, we can only infer from the use of Disney as the backdrop for all amounts of seediness and unhappiness that this is true. As their last day of vacation proceeds, the family continues to encounter strange goings-on, especially the father. Jim is exposed the most to this Disney nightmare. The character of the father is also the least likable. He does not appear to be very bright, is foolish in his decision-making, and, throughout the course of the film, is subject to temptation of the alcoholic and female variety. The screenplay makes it clear that Jim and Emily’s marriage is not at all on good footing, however, it is a bit weak to introduce this fact at all into the film as it does not do anything to add to the terror that one anticipates. The health of their marriage should be a non-factor in a horror film about macabre things going on at a Disney park. It simply gives Jim the opportunity to follow around a pair of French girls and hook up with an otherworldly older woman. Are these female characters part of the weirdness of the situation in which Jim finds himself? Probably, but they lessen the tension of the film. As mentioned, the lack of sympathy generated by the character of Jim does not help either. The wife, Emily, is painted as an unhappy shrew, however, she probably has reason to be unhappy. The father’s boorishness is unnecessary as this particular character does not have to be such an ass in order for the film to convey what it wants to convey. It takes “Escape From Tomorrow” a very long time to become weird. The first hour depicts how the family is unhappy, the father is an oaf, and the mother is unhappy, mostly because her husband is an oaf. They do see strange things going on around them during the first hour, but not enough. Of course, I must remind myself that this was probably a very low-budget film so the filmmakers did what they could given their circumstances. Still, though, some of the first hour could probably have been cut to make the film a bit tighter and more suspenseful. More than halfway through the film, we meet “The Scientist,”(Stass Klassen) who is German (groan). Not all scientists in movies have to be German, but this one is, just so we know he is a scientist…oh, yeah, a mad scientist (yawn). It is in “The Scientist’s” underground lab that the fun of the film starts and the craziness begins. I would have liked to have seen more of “The Scientist” and his machinations, however, he comes and goes fairly quickly. Klassen appears to be the most seasoned actor in the film. “Escape From Tomorrow” is best thought of as a collection of bizarre images that undermine the manufactured “fun” of Disney and how families put themselves through the experience of going to such parks even though such experiences, for the parents, may represent a growing bitterness over one’s life and where they are in their lives. It appears that, according to the film……again that’s ACCORDING TO THE FILM…..going on a trip to Disneyworld or Disneyland with one’s family is equivalent to “giving up” in life. You have kids, are stuck with a spouse you may have grown to dislike, and dealing with all the crying, whining, long lines, etc. only adds more to that burden. Again, that is what the theme of the film appears to be. An underlying hatred of Disney and how it represents the angst of people in such situations is obviously at work in the film. The film drags a bit during the first hour, but it does pick up in the final thirty minutes thanks to an increased amount of strangeness that inhabits this portion of the film. It is worth a viewing simply because of the oddity that it is in addition to the fact that it does contain a nice amount of creepiness and can be unsettling at times. To think of Disneyland or Epcot as a cover for a den of bizarre, creepy, dastardly things is a fascinating idea. To the film’s credit, given its low budget and the nature in which a film like this had to be made, it succeeds even though I have pointed out some criticisms that might hamper a film with a higher budget. Seek it out online from iTunes or Amazon.

Get Pulled In by "Gravity"

Like the film about which I am writing, this review will be short and to the point. Amongst sci-fi blockbusters of the past ten years, Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” ranks highly as it primarily focuses on the action of the story and does not get sidetracked by annoyingly uninteresting subplots. The audience is introduced to the main characters, all two of them, two astronauts, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). About ten minutes into the film, after the two astronauts and the short-lived third member of the crew have been working on repairing a satellite, they receive a message from mission control (voiced with what I suspect may be a wink to the audience by Ed Harris who you may remember from “The Right Stuff” and “Apollo 13,”) that space debris is headed their way and is on a collision course with the satellite. The remainder of the film is about Stone and Kowalski’s attempts to get back to Earth. It’s a simple story, but told with a great deal of suspense and outstanding visual effects. Clooney and Bullock are excellent in their roles.

They do not ham it up at any point, making you realize you are watching two big-time actors. Their performances are so good that I never thought about the fact that I was watching George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. The absence of subplots and tedious back story adds urgency to the film so the focus may be on what is going on. Screenwriters, father and son, Alfonso and Jonas Cuaron, understand that being stranded in space is enough plot and anything more would be extraneous and detrimental to the flow of the film. Sometimes brevity and succinctness are the best policies. If possible, see “Gravity” in 3-D, as the visual effects are very good, though, not as many objects or space stuff flew into my face as I wished. To compare, the 3-D in “Gravity” was not as good as the 3-D in “Avatar” or “Star Trek Into Darkness,” however, it was more impressive than the 3-D effects in “Hugo” or “The Hobbit.” “Gravity” is suspenseful and complex in its brevity, a trait I wish more screenplays would adopt. It is by no means a brilliant film, however, it is very entertaining and worthy of a visit to a theater, where one should see the film, if at all possible. I was pulled in by “Gravity” and I think most who see it will be as well.