In Defense of a Friday the 13th Movie

Liking a film for “what it is” is a difficult thing to explain. To say I liked “Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives” may make some people want to throw something at their computer or call me names. I do not care. It will be a difficult matter to explain why “Friday the 13th Part 6” is a good film, but I will make the attempt.
At first mention, it would be far too easy to talk about all of the things to dislike in installment number 6 of the Friday the 13th series: deaths of random people at the hands of Jason, dumb teenagers running around, no motivation for the killings. Yeah, that is too easy. The teenagers and some of the ancillary characters in this film are likable, which is why some rewriting should have taken place allowing some of the kids and ancillaries to live. The film is definitely the funniest in the series as it uses humor several times to diffuse the reason for the film’s existence. The problem with this is that along the way, it introduces a few funny and likable characters, only to have them killed off minutes after we meet them. That is where the rewriting should have come in. It is not a great idea to introduce likable characters, then kill them shortly thereafter. This is one way the film falters. “Wait a minute! I thought you said you liked this one!” I did, but I do have a few problems with it. What I have detailed so far is my main issue with the film. As I stated before, the teenagers in the film are not goofy, lifeless automatons either. They are well-played by some good young actors including Thom Mathews, Jennifer Cooke, Renee Jones, and Ann Ryerson. It would have been nice to see more live than die in this film. The producers could have gotten the requisite amount of kills in, but allowed the more interesting and likeble characters to live.
In Part 6, Jason is played as a cartoon character. You could, I suppose, discuss the morality of this, however, it is a discussion that is, in the end, futile as films like this are meant to be taken for what they are: money-making endeavors by Paramount Pictures in the 1980’s. What is interesting about this particular film and what makes it better than most of the other films in the series is the humor director, Tom McLoughlin uses. Yes, life is to be cherished and watching representations of death onscreen, especially in films like this, is not always pleasant. At the same time, however, knowing that what I was watching was a money-making venture, but that the director attempted to make it better than just another factory-made product increases it’s entertainment value. The director is no simpleton and realized what he was getting into, so his effort to do a bit more than churn out a piece of junk was appreciated. I have listened to the director’s commentary track of this film. It is clear that McLoughlin took the duty of making this film seriously and that his motivation was to lighten the mood. What more could he have done, quite honestly, other than the rewrites I suggested earlier?
“Friday the 13th Part 6” is not a brilliant piece of filmmaking. It also is not an abysmal piece of filmmaking and would not be deserving of being brushed off as just another “Dead Teenager Movie,” as Siskel and Ebert used to refer to these types of films. If they would have read what I have written today back in 1986, they likely would have wanted to fight me. By the way, for the record, Siskel and Ebert are awesome! I have watched every incarnation of their show since 1983. I have not always agreed with their assessments, however, they articulate their views flawlessly. The new show, “Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies,” with Christy Lemire, Ignatiy Vishnetsky, and occasional reviews by Roger Ebert through the use of a narrator speaking for Ebert, is very good as well. Two reviews in one blog post—That’s Value!!
One more attribute in favor of "Friday the 13th Part 6"--Ron Palillo, Horshack from "Welcome Back, Kotter," is in this film. It's always pleasant to see Ron Palillo.

I Am Positive About This

Why are people sometimes so negative? This is not an easy question to answer, however, I hope to enlighten, or at the very least, entertain as I attempt to briefly explore why negativity seems to be a more welcome trait in our society than positivity.
I do not claim to have been an optimist for the entirety of my life. For, I would estimate, many of my 38 years, I have been quite pessimistic and perhaps, at times, unpleasant to be around. I use this as a preface for this little essay because I do not want to appear preachy. I do not enjoy negativity. I would much rather make people laugh with little jokes or in the course of pleasant conversation rather than carry on about how such and such is stupid or this thing or that thing is dumb. I believe I have been beaten down by people I have met throughout the course of my life who carry with them so much negativity that I want to react in the opposite way. If someone is a Bitter Benny, my response is to either not react at all, attempt to be Vulcan-like and point out where their logic is flawed, or point out something positive so as to diffuse their bitterness or their complaining. Which one of these I do depends on the situation. I believe life runs much more smoothly through positivity. I do not intend to try to do any convincing here or direct anyone to a book which comes to mind called, “The Power of Positive Thinking.” I have never read this book or any self-help book. I do not claim to be any better or any worse as a result. This is simply a rationale I have developed over the last five years. In those last five years, I have had the honor of meeting some exceptionally positive-minded people and some exceptionally negative-minded people. Witnessing the dynamics that grow within a positive and a negative environment is quite interesting. I am not making any sociological breakthroughs by stating that positive people who are like-minded in their positivity create a very pleasant environment. In the opposite way, negative people who are like-minded in their negativity foster a negative environment.
So why the heck would anyone want to gravitate towards the negative environment? It likely depends on each individual’s current state of mind, which is formed by a myriad of factors. Let’s just say that life is going fairly well. Life is never perfect, so let’s just say it is going fairly ok. If this is the case, why gravitate towards complaining, saying ugly things about people, putting people down, etc? Seriously---what is the emotional profit in that??? If it is only to make yourself feel better about yourself, then that is a shame. Again, I feel it necessary to point out that I have only recently adopted this opinion and there are several people I have in mind to whom I attribute this way of thinking. I have been very fortunate to know these people.
I do not expect all people to adopt my way of thinking, nor do I have the naive idea in my head that everyone should hand flowers to each other and should never ever get mad about anything. Of course, this is unrealistic, and by our flawed nature, will never happen. I still get mad, I let it out, but then it is usually over. Since we each have our own free will, I just wonder sometimes why more folks take the negative course than the positive one.
The "Comments" sections on news organizations websites, or even on IMDB sometimes, are full of negative comments about pretty much any news story. I know that the anonymity of the "Comments" section keeps you safe to spew whatever bile you have to say, but, the hate that flows forth within User Comments sections of websites is sad and discouraging.
One more thing I thought about while writing this---since I write a lot of movie reviews on this blog, will you see any negative reviews? I am sure you will. I will attempt to not attack anybody personally, however, as this is in no way helpful to the reader of any review on any website, newspaper, television program, etc.
I hope to be able to continue following the way of thinking I have described. It would definitely help me to spend five years studying with a Vulcan master, however, it is not only very difficult to find one near where I live, but also, I do not want to be devoid of any emotion, though, I can see the appeal of this. Anyway--I will try to continue being positive and to spread the word. So everyone f*** off!! Just kidding, of course.

Some Perfectly Rational Thoughts About Music and It's Place In My Brain--Part 1, aka How Pocky the Kitty Fixed the Toilet and Ate a Glazed Donut

The reason I like a particular song is rarely because of the lyrics—how they speak to me, the deep philosophical meaning of what they are saying, etc. If I like a particular song it is because I like the melody and the arrangement of the instrumentation in that song. I include the voice of the singer/singers in any given song. The voice of the artist does not only provide a way of conveying the subject matter of the song, but it also serves as a separate and unique musical instrument. Sometimes I wonder what percentage of folks like a song for the way it sounds as opposed to the lyrics. Join me now as I embark upon a musical journey of previously unseen depths and precision!
If I like a song enough, I will eventually listen more closely to the lyrics and end up memorizing most of the song and singing along with it in the car. I love Billy Joel’s 1973 song, “Captain Jack” from his Piano Man album. This song is about a lonely young man who drowns his sorrows in whiskey. That is simplifying the song, but essentially, Billy Joel goes through a list of several things that are depressing the young man and at the end of each lyric, Billy suggests that the young man drink some Captain Jack to forget about his troubles. This song does not speak to me lyrically. It sounds great, however. The combination of the arrangement of the instruments used in the song and the always great voice of Billy Joel make for one of my favorite songs. Billy Joel has a unique voice. I tend to gravitate towards songs sung by artists who I deem as having unique voices. Of course, everyone’s opinion of what is unique is different, so I will not pursue that at this time. The best part of “Captain Jack” is the use of the Hammond organ in the last minute of the song. Any time Hammond organ can be effectively included in a song, I am on board. I do remember that upon listening to the lyrics, I was impressed by them. Again, they did not speak to me but they were creative and easy to memorize should I want to sing along with Billy in the car. Here is a fun anecdote regarding “Captain Jack:” I first heard this song when I was working at a movie theater in Irving, Texas. The manager of this theater decided to play Billy Joel’s Greatest Hits (a double cd collection) and Elton John’s Greatest Hits Volume III in a continuous loop. Looking back—that was genius. I was introduced to Billy Joel and Elton John from working at this particular theater in 1990 and 1991. One day in 1992, I think it was, at one of the theater employee meetings, there was a cd destruction ceremony. The manager who had decided to play all Billy and Elton had been transferred to another theater so there was a changing of the guard. As part of this change, a destruction of the previously named cd’s was performed. Looking back, I really, really, really wish I would have just offered to take the cd’s home and the overplaying of these fine artists in some people’s eyes would just be a distant memory. They are both great albums and were not deserving of such poor treatment. You may look forward to more entertaining, homespun anecdotes such as that one in future posts.
Gerry Rafferty’s 1978 song, “Baker Street” from his City to City album is another one of my favorite songs. After listening to this song several thousand times over the last 25 years, I have deduced that it is simply about a woman who is trying to forget about the man who cheated on her. Rafferty suggests that, “…the sun is shinin’, it’s a new mornin’…” What makes this song brilliant, is the three minute instrumental finale, including some fine saxophone and electric guitar playing. Stay away from the short version of this song and seek out the longer, 6 minute, 30 second version. I never tire of this song. I remember first hearing this song in the car with my mom, probably in 1978, the year of it’s release. I believe she was listening to KLIF AM when they were still playing music and back when there were AM stations playing contemporary music.
At this point, I would like to consider the merits of Elton John’s 1971 song, “Levon,” originally found on his Madman Across the Water album. This song does contain some brilliant lyrics, however, again, it was the way it sounded musically that attracted me to it. I will say, though, that any song that contains the lyrics, “….and Jesus, he wants to go to Venus, leavin’ Levon far behind, take a balloon and go sailin’, while Levon, Levon slowly dies….” is fantastic in my estimation. As well, I always enjoy hearing Elton “whoo” at the end of the song. What? Towards the end of “Levon,” after the lyrics, “…and he shall be Levon, and he shall be a good man…,” Elton lets out a “Whoo.” This is not a lyric, but rather, it is just a musical interjection he belts out. I do not know if it was intended originally or if it was one of those things he did because it felt good musically.
In the future posts about music, you may look forward to more thoughts about specific songs I find to be appealing. Until then, keep your feet on the ground and keep reach-----wait! That’s what Casey Kasem would say. Make it so! No—can’t use that—that’s Jean-Luc Picard’s line. Maybe I’ll come up with something later.

Tear Down the Wall Between You and the Fortress

If you have ever wanted to see a film that one could say is a cross between a Steven Spielberg film and a Quentin Tarantino film, I have one for you. The 1986 Australian film, “Fortress,” fits this description pretty darn well. “Fortress” stars Rachel Ward as schoolteacher, Sally Jones, who teaches a class of about twelve students in a small village in Australia. I do not recall any mention of what part of Australia the film is set, however, it is not terribly relevant to the plot—just as long as it’s not supposed to take place in the outback, which it does not.
At the beginning of a normal school day, a group of four thugs, wearing masks, kidnap the students and the teacher at gunpoint, forcing them into the back of a van. The teacher and her students begin a frightening journey through the area around their village which leads them to a hole in a wooded area which we learn had been prepared prior to their arrival by the four thugs. The hole is shallow enough for the students and teacher to slide down into. We discover that it is an underground cavern (do they make above ground caverns?). I hesitate, at this point, to go into describing the events that make up the remainder of the film, as the film contains very specific acts. In other words, Act I features the students and teacher being kidnapped and the events surrounding that. Act II is comprised of the arrival at the hole in the wooded area and what the students and teacher discover and how they react to the situation in which they find themselves. The remainder of the film offers quite a bit of excitement and opportunities to root for this group of young people and their teacher.
One interesting aspect of “Fortress” is the performance of Rachel Ward. She is perfect as the teacher who leads and corrals the students, as even in such a frightening position, the students still, at times, act like children. One could argue that presented with circumstances involving being kidnapped at gunpoint and witnessing some unpleasant things, children may not continue to act like children. Not being Dr. Benjamin Spock, the famous child psychologist, or a father, I cannot comment intelligently on how children would act in any given situation. I can imagine, however, that there might be some debate regarding the conduct of the children in the film, who range from ages 5-14. I did not have any issue regarding the conduct of the children. Rather, their conduct appeared to be a fairly realistic view of how children may act in the situations they are placed into during the course of the film.
Before starring in “Fortress,” Rachel Ward was already well-known for her performances in “Sharky’s Machine” (“Nobody Leans on Sharky’s Machine”), the tv mini-series, “The Thorn Birds,” and the 1984 Jeff Bridges film, “Against All Odds,” which features the great Phil Collins song, “Take a Look at Me Now.” It was great to see an actress who was already well-known appear in a relatively low-budget film in which she is the only well-known performer in the film. Her interaction with the young actors in the film is great and one may surmise (I’m gonna go ahead and surmise) that Rachel Ward perhaps created positive chemistry with her co-stars. I got the sense throughout the film that teacher and students were working as a collective group to attempt to find a way out of their horrible situation.
There are not many scenes of violence or gore in “Fortress.” This works to the film’s benefit as the film is, without a doubt, more about the characters and the gravity of their situation than about a display of violence. It would, though, surely receive an “R” rating, I believe, if reviewed by the MPAA at the time, however, it was made for Australian television, and, therefore, did not receive a rating, at least not in the U.S. “Fortress” feels, at times, like a Spielberg directed or produced film, like an adventure film for kids in which the kids embark on some kind of adventure. There is no doubt, however, after the first few minutes of the film, that this will not be so, however, the Spielberg-esque feel remains at times, despite the actions in the film.
At the same time, there are many aspects of the film that may remind one of a Tarantino film---of course, “Fortress” being made in 1986, Tarantino had yet to emerge in the filmmaking scene—nonetheless, I use Tarantino as a barometer for films with more of an edge than a normal, “safe-feeling” movie. Trust me, you will see what I mean if you either purchase “Fortress” or rent it from any of the fine online movie rental websites like Netflix. My barometer points towards an extremely positive reaction to “Fortress.” It is recommended highly and is a rewarding way to spend 88 minutes. Do not build a wall between you and this film. There is no need to defend against seeing “Fortress.”

Snail Male?

Did you know that most species of snails have both male and female reproductive organs? This being the case, I suppose one would be speaking correctly anatomically, but still not be speaking correctly in a physical sense, if one made the suggestion to a snail that it do something in particular to itself.

I Threw Myself Into The Pit

There any many movies that should not be considered under the normal rules of film criticism, whatever those rules may be. One such film is the 1981 horror film (??), “The Pit.” Although one would have found “The Pit” in the horror section of his or her local video store in the 1980’s, upon watching the film, one would likely come to the conclusion that “The Pit” is not a horror film, but, rather, an exercise in fun film insanity. That is high praise. Not just any film can be labled as “fun film insanity.”
“The Pit” establishes itself as 90 minutes of good fun within the first five minutes when we watch young Jamie Benjamin, played by Candian actor, Sammy Snyders, leading a class bully and said bully’s girlfriend to a nearby woodsy area where there is a pit in the ground. The bully is led to believe by young Jamie that there will be a bag of various treasures in the woods. If you forget about what happens in this scene, don’t worry because this very same scene will be repeated about 45 minutes into the film. It was very nice of the filmmakers to give us a brief refresher course regarding this opening scene in the middle of the movie. So, Jamie pushes the bully and the bully’s girlfriend into the pit, after which we see an opening credits sequence that reminded me very much of the opening of a tv show. You’ll see what I mean. I was hoping to see a title card at the end of the opening credits that would inform me that this episode’s Special Guest Star would be Pernell Roberts, or, maybe a post-Star Trek/pre-T.J. Hooker William Shatner.
Through the course of the action in “The Pit,” we learn that Jaime’s parents are out of town. Jamie is being looked after by babysitter, Sandy O’Reilly, played by Canadian actress, Jeannie Elias. We learn, as well, that Jamie is given instructions from his teddy bear, Teddy, to feed the creatures that live in the pit, called trogs. At this point in the film, we have already been confronted with a few surrealistic elements which further the entertainment value of the film. It is established in the film that Jamie is 12 years old, however, the actor appears to be older, perhaps 14. The fact that this boy of 12 years who looks older, has a babysitter is not terribly strange. The fact that the boy sleeps with a teddy bear and the fact that his babysitter bathes him are interesting. These definitely amp up the cooky factor of the movie. Now—the fact that the teddy bear speaks to Jamie is not so strange. In a horror film, one expects extremely strange things to occur and I maintain that a teddy bear speaking to and giving directions to a young boy to push various people into a pit full of creatures called trogs is not out of the ordinary, given the circumstances. The strangeness simply presents itself in the form of awkward situations within the film. There are several instances in “The Pit” of awkward music cues. For example, there is a pit throwing into montage scene in which Jamie dispenses of three people within five minutes of screen time. After each kill, the music cue used is one of whimsy, such as what you might expect in a scene involving a cute dog rolling around in some leaves.
It is never clearly established why Jamie is of a mind to push people he does not like into a pit, however, because this film is so much goofy fun, I did not mind. If you are looking for any analysis into what is going on in the mind of Jamie, you will not receive any.
“The Pit” is an example of a movie that I wanted to see after looking at it’s one-sheet poster. The poster includes all the essential elements of the film: the strange kid, Teddy, some Polaroids, and the trogs. This sold me and I hope it sells you on seeking it out. I am forever thankful that I sought out this awesome film. If you are looking for a fun, strange film to enjoy, I recommend throwing yourself into “The Pit.”

There's Always Room For Bill Murray

In one scene of Mitch Glazer’s “Passion Play,” there appears in the foreground a bottle of scotch whiskey sitting on a table. The label on the bottle says, “Gordon Shumway Scotch Whiskey.” You may remember that Gordon Shumway was Alf’s name on his home planet of Melmac. The appearance of that bottle is one reason why I somewhat enjoyed “Passion Play.”
The main reason I decided to watch this 2010 film was the cast. “Passion Play” features Bill Murray, Mickey Rourke, and Megan Fox. The plot is fairly simple, but if you let it, it may mystify you. I almost let it mystify me, but I did not try to take it so literally, although, it almost works as just a literal storyline. What does all that mean? The plot of “Passion Play” is as follows: Mickey Rourke plays a man named Nate who gets into trouble with some gangsters, mainly because he has sex with the wife of the mob boss, Happy Shannon, played by Bill Murray. At the beginning of the movie he is about to be shot by some of Happy’s goons, but is rescued by someone who shoots and kills the goons. Nate, tired and dazed, wanders into the countryside of what appears to be southern Arizona, perhaps near Mexico. He discovers a traveling carnival which features the typical movie carnival things—a bearded lady, a ferris wheel, and a woman with wings.
The woman with wings is played by Megan Fox. The winged woman is named Lily. She travels with the carnival as a woman who sits in a lighted, glass booth and displays her wings. That really is pretty much all she does in the carnival---but she has wings and can kind of fly. Not only is she super hot, but she has wings—that is a powerful combination. Anyway, Nate and Lily end up leaving the carnival and venturing out into a new life together. Nate falls in love with Lily. Happy Shannon wants to kill Nate for having sex with his wife. Happy also, after learning about the woman with wings, wants her as his own. What follows is interesting, but is not the wonderful cinematic experience it appears the filmmakers thought it might be. I enjoyed it and would watch it again, maybe in a few years. The performances of Bill Murray and Mickey Rourke are very good and make the film a bit more interesting than it might have been without them. Megan Fox’s performance is good as well. Her wings are a product of some below average visual effects, but she still sells them well. I believed that her back did hurt as a result of having wings to lug around.
“Passion Play” is one of those films that made me think, up until the final scene, "So, what does this all mean---Megan Fox has wings, Bill Murray is a gangster who hosts a fancy-looking event in which the winged woman is in a glass booth on a stage in an opera house, Mickey Rourke is down and out again, there’s Gordon Shumway scotch whiskey." If you watch the whole movie, I believe clarity will kick in at the end. I could be wrong and some may figure out what is going on ten minutes in, but sometimes I am not that quick. One thing that should be addressed is that a passion play is a dramatic representation of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As hard as I tried, I could not make any connection between what Nate was going through in the film and the life of Christ. I really did try, but I failed.
It is always agreeable to see Bill Murray in any film, I am still very happy for Mickey Rourke to be on the path to what hopefully is a Robert Downey Jr-like comeback, and, of course, Megan Fox is one of the sexiest women alive and (let me be unashamedly male here) hotter than heck! Even though the title of the film and the events in the film do not seem to match (you could make a tenuous case after the final scene for them matching), there is enough in the film that is of interest to make it worth 90 minutes of your time, especially if you are a Bill Murray or Mickey Rourke fan. It is neither fascinating nor profound, but it is interesting. If you have enough passion for either Murray or Rourke, give it a play.