arcwulf
Joined Nov 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
arcwulf's rating
Let's get this out of the way: This television version of Charles Dickens's classic story is not the best acted nor the best produced, and it's special effects are (quite frankly) laughable even by the standards of the time. It's gifted actors seem like they're rushed to deliver all of their lines in the course of a commercial television production (because they are). None of that is what makes this such an outstanding version of the teleplay.
The secret sauce here is that this is filmed in 1970s BBC studios, and that means you get the wonderful effect of the PAL video technology at the time, with its overblown highlights, deep blacks, and high refresh rate. These qualities inherent in the technology of the time make this (in my mind) the spookiest version of this story ever put to screen. The ghosts are just more ghostly, and matte-background London looks much more gritty than any other version. The atmosphere is palpable and feels oppressive, and that is what you want in what is arguably the most famous ghost story ever told.
The secret sauce here is that this is filmed in 1970s BBC studios, and that means you get the wonderful effect of the PAL video technology at the time, with its overblown highlights, deep blacks, and high refresh rate. These qualities inherent in the technology of the time make this (in my mind) the spookiest version of this story ever put to screen. The ghosts are just more ghostly, and matte-background London looks much more gritty than any other version. The atmosphere is palpable and feels oppressive, and that is what you want in what is arguably the most famous ghost story ever told.
This film is famous for being the directorial debut of Francis Ford Coppola, but it's more than that. No, really!
The film starts when a greedy widow covers up her husband's death in order to get his share of his rich mother's inheritance. During the course of her scheme she visits her husband's relatives in the family's castle. There she learns of their dark past, and finds more than she bargains for!
It sounds like a mystery, and, well, it is... but it's also a proto- slasher horror film, with gore that won't impress today's fans, but the gore isn't the point: The film owes much of its terror from its setting, its imagery, and surreal circumstances that have a tint of something otherworldly. From the sinister castle, with dark hallways, to the dead autumn plant life, daylight scenes that look like sunsets, and night scenes that are competently dark (a rarity at that time), the creepy music and some of the downright ghoulish scenes later on in the film, and you have a movie that looks scary without any unnecessary fog or smoke. The eerie music, crackling sound and even the contrasting tone on the grain of the film make it seem even more supernatural and horrifying at times.
As a low-budget black and white film from this era, there are mistakes, to be sure (and a few are quite painfully obvious). But the expert camera work, scene layouts, creepy sets, more than make up for it.
Now, I'm going to make some complaints, and they might sound harsh, but really, but really they're just minor nitpicks in what is a truly enjoyable film. First, you're going to see the murderer's identity from a million miles away. If it's not obvious to you in the first half hour, I would be surprised. Second, for a film that purports to take place in Ireland, there is a distinct dearth of Irish accents (and the ones that are there are not believable). Third, there are some technical flaws in the film, but outside of one painfully obvious errant boom mic they can be overlooked for the most part. Some of the actors are terrific (of particular note is Luana Anders as Louise, and Patrick Magee doing his usual sinister shtick as Dr. Caleb), but some of them are well... terrible (Mary Mitchell takes the role of the whiny, shrieking Kane, who is this film's innocent lamb, but still very unlikable). In some films these flaws would undo everything, but in this film they're just 'flavor.'
In conclusion, if you like movies that can terrify you with what you don't see, as well as what you do, be sure to watch it!
The film starts when a greedy widow covers up her husband's death in order to get his share of his rich mother's inheritance. During the course of her scheme she visits her husband's relatives in the family's castle. There she learns of their dark past, and finds more than she bargains for!
It sounds like a mystery, and, well, it is... but it's also a proto- slasher horror film, with gore that won't impress today's fans, but the gore isn't the point: The film owes much of its terror from its setting, its imagery, and surreal circumstances that have a tint of something otherworldly. From the sinister castle, with dark hallways, to the dead autumn plant life, daylight scenes that look like sunsets, and night scenes that are competently dark (a rarity at that time), the creepy music and some of the downright ghoulish scenes later on in the film, and you have a movie that looks scary without any unnecessary fog or smoke. The eerie music, crackling sound and even the contrasting tone on the grain of the film make it seem even more supernatural and horrifying at times.
As a low-budget black and white film from this era, there are mistakes, to be sure (and a few are quite painfully obvious). But the expert camera work, scene layouts, creepy sets, more than make up for it.
Now, I'm going to make some complaints, and they might sound harsh, but really, but really they're just minor nitpicks in what is a truly enjoyable film. First, you're going to see the murderer's identity from a million miles away. If it's not obvious to you in the first half hour, I would be surprised. Second, for a film that purports to take place in Ireland, there is a distinct dearth of Irish accents (and the ones that are there are not believable). Third, there are some technical flaws in the film, but outside of one painfully obvious errant boom mic they can be overlooked for the most part. Some of the actors are terrific (of particular note is Luana Anders as Louise, and Patrick Magee doing his usual sinister shtick as Dr. Caleb), but some of them are well... terrible (Mary Mitchell takes the role of the whiny, shrieking Kane, who is this film's innocent lamb, but still very unlikable). In some films these flaws would undo everything, but in this film they're just 'flavor.'
In conclusion, if you like movies that can terrify you with what you don't see, as well as what you do, be sure to watch it!
Don't get me wrong, I can see how the unimaginative dregs that hate this movie are coming from. It's very off-beat; more of a funny noir film than a black comedy. The audience is meant to identify with Sheldon Mopes (Ed Norton) as an outsider who discovers that children's television programming is more of a criminal enterprise akin to a 1930's era Mafia than what "Sesame Street" would have you believe.
There are levels of complexity in the characters that most people who consider the likes of "Scary Movie" to be classic comedy will likely miss. It's easy to hate Mopes at first: He is, after all, representative of the epitome of all hated kid TV mascots, Barney the Purple Dinosaur. He is more than he appears, however. Sheldon Mopes has a violent anger within him that finally threatens to erupt by the end of the film. Despite that, he's a genuinely good guy who is pushed to the brink by an industry insane with corruption. Robin William's Rainbow Randolph is a man miserable with his own corruption who shifts the blame for his position to Mopes simply because Smoochy inadvertently benefits from his downfall. Randolph's insanity eventually leads to a sort of impish super-villainy until he is ready to accept the blame himself. Catherine Keener plays the evil bitch beautifully again, until Mopes helps her to remember why she got into the business of children's entertainment in the first place (she seems a little delusional too; when she mentions that Harvey Firestein's character Marv Green grabbed her ass at a benefit dinner I had to say, "yeah, right." Sure, Firestein's character isn't explicitly gay in the film but c'mon, it's Harvey freakin' Firestein). Danny DeVito is his usual charming self as the astoundingly belligerent Burke Bennet, a conniving rat who conspires to have his own client bumped off.
While the production is amazing, and it is certainly so, it pales when compared to the amount of acting and comedy talent in this film. Though I will admit that John Stewart is wasted here as a witless straight man, there are nuances to the comedy that are hard to pick up on a single viewing. My favorite example is when Rainbow Randolph dupes Mopes into playing a Nazi rally to discredit him: Williams shifts between no less than three accents including Scottish, Australian, and Irish. The fact that the characters (and many of the viewers who watch the film) don't pick up on this is to me one of the little joys (of many) of the film (another is Rainbow's theme song which is filled with sexual innuendo). Oh yeah, and Vincent Schiavelli is awesome as the extremely creepy Buggy Ding Dong, but then again he's always awesome.
My one gripe (and it is a minor one) is the ice show at the end credits. It just seems a little forced.
This is one of the most complete films I've seen in the last ten years, and is one of those rare comedies that I can bring myself to watch it again and again (like MP and the HG, Clerks, and other nerd-fests). If you "get" the humor you'll find a favorite for life. If you don't, well, go watch the newest Sandra Bullock/Hugh Grant rom-com train wreck.
There are levels of complexity in the characters that most people who consider the likes of "Scary Movie" to be classic comedy will likely miss. It's easy to hate Mopes at first: He is, after all, representative of the epitome of all hated kid TV mascots, Barney the Purple Dinosaur. He is more than he appears, however. Sheldon Mopes has a violent anger within him that finally threatens to erupt by the end of the film. Despite that, he's a genuinely good guy who is pushed to the brink by an industry insane with corruption. Robin William's Rainbow Randolph is a man miserable with his own corruption who shifts the blame for his position to Mopes simply because Smoochy inadvertently benefits from his downfall. Randolph's insanity eventually leads to a sort of impish super-villainy until he is ready to accept the blame himself. Catherine Keener plays the evil bitch beautifully again, until Mopes helps her to remember why she got into the business of children's entertainment in the first place (she seems a little delusional too; when she mentions that Harvey Firestein's character Marv Green grabbed her ass at a benefit dinner I had to say, "yeah, right." Sure, Firestein's character isn't explicitly gay in the film but c'mon, it's Harvey freakin' Firestein). Danny DeVito is his usual charming self as the astoundingly belligerent Burke Bennet, a conniving rat who conspires to have his own client bumped off.
While the production is amazing, and it is certainly so, it pales when compared to the amount of acting and comedy talent in this film. Though I will admit that John Stewart is wasted here as a witless straight man, there are nuances to the comedy that are hard to pick up on a single viewing. My favorite example is when Rainbow Randolph dupes Mopes into playing a Nazi rally to discredit him: Williams shifts between no less than three accents including Scottish, Australian, and Irish. The fact that the characters (and many of the viewers who watch the film) don't pick up on this is to me one of the little joys (of many) of the film (another is Rainbow's theme song which is filled with sexual innuendo). Oh yeah, and Vincent Schiavelli is awesome as the extremely creepy Buggy Ding Dong, but then again he's always awesome.
My one gripe (and it is a minor one) is the ice show at the end credits. It just seems a little forced.
This is one of the most complete films I've seen in the last ten years, and is one of those rare comedies that I can bring myself to watch it again and again (like MP and the HG, Clerks, and other nerd-fests). If you "get" the humor you'll find a favorite for life. If you don't, well, go watch the newest Sandra Bullock/Hugh Grant rom-com train wreck.