Movie Review: The Last Gladiators

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Movie Review: The Last Gladiators

The Last Gladiators
Directed by: Alex Gibney.

I am a huge hockey fan. I have been a fan of the L.A. Kings since I was 6 years old, when they got my favorite player of all time – Wayne Gretzky. Yes, I was a bandwagon hoper back then, but since I suffered through 25 years with the team, I believe I can call myself a true fan now, and last year when they won their first Stanley Cup it was perhaps the greatest moment of my life that I really didn’t have anything to do with. The NHL has changed since I was a kid, and Alex Gibney’s The Last Gladiators shows one of the ways in which it has – fighting. There is no doubt that fights still happen in the NHL – and even if the media wags a disapproving finger at the NHL for allowing it to continue, fighting will always be a part of the game. But it isn’t as big of a part as it once was. Watching The Last Gladiators takes you back to a time when bench clearing brawls were common. And the speed and ferocity of the fights in those days seem much worse than today. Fighters today are a little more concerned for their own safety – as well they should be – and do a better job of protecting themselves. But back in the 1980s, two men simply squared off and starting pounding on each other until one of them fell over.

One of the toughest fighters back then was Chris Nilan, who is the main focus of Gibney’s documentary. Nilan admits he wasn’t a great hockey player – he couldn’t skate very well, shoot very well, or pass very well. But what he could do was fight. He wasn’t afraid of anyone, and for years as a Montreal Canadian, he would go toe-to-toe with anyone who dared mess with one of his teammates. He got better at hockey over the years – his coaches and teammates helped him work on the fundamentals of the game, and he even scored 20 goals one year. He didn’t get “pretty” goals like Gretzky or Mario Lemieux, but you plant him in front of the net, he couldn’t be moved, and he'd whack in a rebound goal. If that sounds easy, you try it sometime.

But Nilan, like many former NHL tough guys – or enforcers or goons or whatever you want to call it – has had a rough time since leaving the NHL. The movie has an interview with Bob Probert – probably the most infamous of these guys from that era – and will later show his funeral. He died of a heart attack, after years of struggling with alcohol and drug abuse. He was only 45 years old. The autopsy also showed signs of brain damage – from all the concussions Probert got in his career as a result of fighting. The documentary features other tough guys – Nilan, Tony Twist, Marty McSorley and others list all their injuries and surgeries they had over the year to repair the damage to their bodies they inflicted on themselves and each other over the years.

What always strikes me when I see these enforcers interviewed is that they all seem like nice guys. You would think that guys whose job it is to beat people up game in and game out, would have a screw loose, or be violent, nasty people in their day-to-day lives, but for the most part, they aren’t. Nilan is filled with regret for some of the things he did outside of hockey – yes, there were some fights – but mainly it was his drug addiction (to painkillers) and alcoholism that he regrets. And these tough guys have a code – they don’t really want to hurt each other. They just want to fire up their team, or defend their teammates. The most telling example of this “code” comes not from Nilan, but another tough guy who says when he was fighting one time, his shoulder popped out of the joint and he let out an audible gasp of pain – the other fighter asked him what was wrong and when he told him the shoulder popped out, his opponent said “Okay, fight’s over” and stopped. Many of these guys became good friends after their playing days were over.

Fighting will probably always have a place in hockey. None of the fighters interviewed think it should be taken out of the game, and every time they do a poll of players in the NHL, the overwhelming majority think it has a place in the game (I believe the last one I saw was at 98% for fighting). But the debate around fighting in hockey has ramped up in recent years. Concerns about concussions are real – and how they affect the quality of life of players after their playing days can be horrific (not quite as bad as football players, but not good either). Many in the media want to take out “staged” fights, but leave non-staged ones in the game. If staged fights got eliminated, so would the jobs for these enforcers – because of the most part, all their fights are staged. Many see this as a good thing – after all, most enforcers aren’t very good hockey players – certainly not NHL level at anything other than fighting.

But to wrap up the fighting debate in the cloak of player safety, and go after just “staged” fights doesn’t make much sense to me. You can get a concussion or a major injury in a fight whether it’s staged or not. What the NHL needs to decide is if fighting has a place in the game or not – and then either let it go, knowing the risk the players are willingly taking, or eliminating it completely. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I know that most of this review has turned away from Gibney’s documentary and talked about fighting in hockey, but, well, that’s just the way it is. The Last Gladiators is a must see for all hockey fans. Seeing what Nilan and other tough guys have gone through since their glory days may well make them think twice before cheering on hockey fights. And the debate about fighting in hockey is real, and should be had – just like the debate about concussions in football must be had as well. As fans, we don’t really see hockey players as “people” – they are out there on the ice playing for our amusement – we cheer for them, or boo them, as we see fit, and when their playing days are done, for the most part, we don’t think of them ever again. What The Last Gladiators does is make us see Nilan, who always seemed like the toughest guy in the world on the ice, as a real person who has paid a hefty price. Only part of that is because of hockey, but undeniably hockey contributed to his demons. I still don’t really know what I think of fighting in hockey – as a kid, I loved it, but for the most part now when a fight breaks out, I yawn, and wait for the game to start again. The Last Gladiators is an essential addition to the debate about fighting in hockey.

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: It Came From Outer Space (1953)

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: It Came From Outer Space (1953)

It Came From Outer Space (1953)
Directed by: Jack Arnold.
Written by: Harry Essex based on the novel by Ray Bradbury.
Starring: Richard Carlson (John Putnam), Barbara Rush (Ellen Fields), Charles Drake (Sheriff Matt Warren), Joe Sawyer (Frank Daylon), Russell Johnson (George), Kathleen Hughes (June).

The 1950s were a golden age for Science Fiction in American film – especially the alien invasion movie. It really started in 1951, with the opposite films The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Thing From Another World. The Day the Earth Stood still told the story of a peaceful alien, coming to earth to warn them that their nuclear weapons were threatening not just their world, but other worlds as well. The Thing From Another World was about a creature thawed from the ice in Antarctica, who wanted nothing more than to kill humanity. Both films were reactions to the cold war, one indulging in fears of nuclear annihilation, the other in cold war paranoia. 1953’s It Came From Outer Space tries to indulge in both – and is surprisingly successful.

The film opens with something that looks like a meteor crash landing in the desert. Amateur star gazer, and aspiring writer John Putnam (Richard Carlson) and his girlfriend Ellen Fields (Barbara Rush) head out to see the crash site. There is a giant crater, and Putnam is the only one who risks going in. He sees not a meteor, but a spaceship and sees a door closing. But then a rock slide happens, burying the ship. When he tries to tell everyone the truth, they think he’s crazy. But he’s determined to not let the truth be buried. And when a few people around town start acting strangely – completely unlike themselves – others think that perhaps Putnam may in fact be right, and aliens have landed, and are inhabiting the bodies of those in town.

The story is similar, in ways, to Invasion of the Body Snatchers (who wouldn’t see the first screen adaptation for another three years at this point), with paranoia taking over. What if your neighbor is no longer your neighbor? Your husband no longer you husband? And worse, what if no one would believe you? These are classic sci fi tropes, and It Came From Outer Space handles them very well.

Yet, it is also different from many alien invasion movies, because it’s not really an invasion at all. The aliens don’t want to be here – they crashed. They think Putnam is the only one they can trust, and tell him that everyone will be fine – they just need time. Putnam has to try and stop the paranoia that starts infecting the town, especially the Sheriff (Charles Drake), who simply wants to kill the aliens. They are different, so they must be the enemy,

The film was directed by Jack Arnold, who made a few of the classic sci fi films of the 1950s. Alongside this one was The Creature from the Black Lagoon (more horror than sci fi) and The Incredible Shrinking Man. I haven’t seen those films, but his handling of It Came From Outer Space, makes me want to see those films as well. Apparently he – as well as Ray Bradbury who wrote the novel the movie was based on – never wanted to show the aliens in their true form, and I think that that instinct was probably correct. But the studio, who was making this film in 3-D, didn’t want that, and so the giant, iconic one eyed aliens of the film were born. They are effective in the movie, but I think that it would have been more effective to not show anything at all. But subtlety has never been Hollywood’s strong suit.

I don’t think It Came From Outer Space is quite as good as the best of the 1950s science fiction. It doesn’t have the same impact as The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Thing From Another World or War of the Worlds for example. Yet, it is still pretty damned good – and a must for lovers of the genre.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Woman Next Door (1981)

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Woman Next Door (1981)

The Woman Next Door (1981)
Directed by: François Truffaut.
Written by: François Truffaut & Suzanne Schiffman and Jean Aurel.
Starring: Gérard Depardieu (Bernard Coudray), Fanny Ardant (Mathilde Bauchard), Henri Garcin (Philippe Bauchard), Michèle Baumgartner (Arlette Coudray), Roger Van Hool (Roland Duguet), Véronique Silver (Madame Odile Jouve).

Francois Truffaut was a great admirer of Alfred Hitchcock. The book length interview that Truffaut did with Hitchcock is certainly necessary reading for fans of either filmmaker. Watching Truffaut’s 1981 film The Woman Next Door, it’s hard not to think of Hitchcock. True, the film may not quite be a thriller in the way Hitchcock made them, and yet it recalls the tone of some Hitchcock’s best films. While I certainly do not think it’s one of Truffaut’s best efforts, it is a fascinating film nonetheless.

Gerard Depardieu stars as Bernard, who lives a happy life out in the French countryside with his wife, Arlette (Michele Baumgartner) and their young son. Everything seems idyllic until the vacant house next door suddenly finds new tenants. Bernard meets the husband, Phillippe (Henri Garcin) first and is friendly with him. Then he meets the wife – Mathilde (Fanny Ardant), and he turns cold. He was involved with Mathilde a few years before he met his wife, and the relationship was passionate, yet dysfunctional and ended badly. Still, the problems that arise later in the movie may well have been avoided had Bernard simply told Arlette the truth. Which he doesn’t. Things are made worse by the fact that Mathilde doesn’t tell Phillippe the truth either.

Bernard tries to stay away from Mathilde, who just wants to talk at first, but he cannot. They are drawn together, even though both had thought they had moved on and become happy since their relationship ended. They both know it’s wrong, but they cannot help it. An affair begins, that will eventually consume them – first driving him to do things he didn’t think possible, and then her to take things even a step further.

For the most part, when I think of Truffaut’s films, I think of his lightness of touch and the gentle comedy in which he brings to his movies, even when they are more serious in nature. That comedy is missing in The Woman Next Door, because it wouldn’t really be appropriate. There is nothing funny about this affair that consumes these two people, and will ruin many others lives. Yet, Truffaut’s skill and style is still there. His camera forever moving, watching from a distance as these two circle the drain together. The ending is heartbreaking, and yet completely appropriate.

Ultimately, I do not think that The Woman Next Door is quite a great movie. There is greatness in it – from Truffaut’s direction to the performances by Depardieu and Ardant, and his portrait of small town life. And yet, at times, the films drags a little bit. Hitchcock, I feel, would have known better and cut some of the movie down a little bit, to bring it to its violent conclusion faster. Yet, if the worst thing you can say about a film is that Hitchcock would have done it slightly better, I still consider that to be a high compliment.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

Friday, March 8, 2013

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)
Directed by: Tay Garnett.
Written by: Harry Ruskin and Niven Busch based on the novel by James M. Cain.
Starring: Lana Turner (Cora Smith), John Garfield (Frank Chambers), Cecil Kellaway (Nick Smith), Hume Cronyn (Arthur Keats), LeonAmes (Kyle Sackett), Audrey Totter (Madge Gorland), Alan Reed (Ezra Liam Kennedy), Jeff York (Blair).

I often find older movies sexier than newer ones, despite the obvious disadvantage that in older movies, you really couldn’t show very much. As a case in point, I show you 1946’s The Postman Always Rings Twice, which is a movie dripping with lust and sexuality, despite the fact that there is no nudity in it. Now, I haven’t seen the 1981 remake with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, which apparently was full of nudity, but I bet you I would agree with what I have heard about it – that despite the more graphic nature of the film, it still doesn’t compare with the sexuality on display in the original. Few movies have.

The film stars the great John Garfield as Frank Chambers, a drifter who happens upon a gas station/restaurant and gets offered a job by the older owner, Nick (Cecil Kellaway). Frank figures this is as good as place as any to stay for a little while before moving on. Than he sees Nick’s wife - Cora (Lana Turner) – and his life will never be the same. These two characters are attracted to each other at their basest levels almost from the moment they first lock eyes, and as they circle each other and flirt, you can feel that tension between them that becomes almost as unbearable for the audience as it does for the characters. When the husband is for a while, they give into their desires. Frank wants Cora to run away with him. But she wants security and money – she has put too much time into Nick to walk away with nothing. But if something were to happen to Nick, she could have everything she wants – money and Frank. But things that seem so easy when you’re planning them, have a way of going wrong when it comes time to actually do the deed – as Cora and Frank find out.

The Postman Always Rings Twice is a classic film noir that has all the necessary agreements. John Garfield is excellent as Frank, who may be a drifter, and a little bit of a lowlife, but who would never become a murderer if he had not met Cora. Turner makes an excellent femme fatale, drawing her everyman co-star down into the depths of depravity with her. Poor Cecil Kellaway is in fine form as the naïve, drunken husband who cannot see what is right in front of his face. And the great Hume Cronyn, who shows up late as a lawyer, has never been sleazier.

And yet, The Postman Always Rings Twice is a little bit different than many film noirs. I felt for the characters a little bit more this time around. Cora is a femme fatale for sure, and yet she is a human one. She is a woman who has been looked at as a sex object by every man she has met since she was 15. She latched onto a seemingly nice, stable guy and has discovered that even that won’t bring her peace. With Frank, for the first time, she feels love. And yet, she cannot go back to being poor. And Garfield, as the dupe, makes his character more love struck than most noir leading men. Even as the plot disintegrates around them, and they are brought into court and the lovers turn on each other, he cannot help but love Cora.

The film was directed with style by Tay Garnett, and based on the great James M. Cain’s novel. Cuts were made because the movie was considered too sexual for 1946, and yet the final cut is still dripping with lust. You feel that tension, that connection right until the final frames of the movie. The Postman Always Rings Twice is great noir.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Eel (1997)

Thursday, March 7, 2013

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Eel (1997)

The Eel (1997)
Directed by: Shôhei Imamura.
Written by: Shôhei Imamura & Daisuke Tengan & Motofumi Tomikawa & Akira Yoshimura based on the novel by Yoshimura.
Starring: Kôji Yakusho (Takuro Yamashita), Misa Shimizu (Keiko Hattori), Mitsuko Baishô (Misako Nakajima), Akira Emoto (Tamotsu Takasaki),  Fujio Tokita (Jiro Nakajima), Shô Aikawa (Yuji Nozawa), Ken Kobayashi (Masaki Saito), Sabu Kawahara (Seitaro Misato), Etsuko Ichihara (Fumie Hattori), Tomorowo Taguchi (Eiji Dojima), Chiho Terada (Emiko Yamashita).

Shohei Imamura got his start as an assistant director to the great Yashijiro Ozu, and yet when he started to make his own films, they couldn’t possibly be more different than his former boss’. Ozu’s films are extremely controlled. His shots last minutes at a time and his camera never moves. His films are about families, who are never quite able to tell each other what they are thinking and feeling. And they are heartbreaking in their simplicity. Imamura’s films on the other hand are messy and bursting with life, death and violence. He isn’t interested in perfection like Ozu, but in something more primal. His 1997 film, The Eel, won the Palme D’Or at Cannes, and although I do not think it’s quite a great film, it is certainly an interesting one.

The film opens in 1988, with office drone Takuro Yamashita coming home to discover his wife having sex with another man. He pulls out a knife and brutally murders her, letting the lover escape, and then calmly bikes to the police station, in his blood splattered yellow rain slicker to turn himself in. Flash forward 8 years, and Yamashita is being released from prison. He seems to have been a model prisoner, so the guards even let him take the pet eel he kept all those years inside at the prison pond. Trained as a barber in prison, he opens up a small barbershop in a nearly deserted suburb of Tokyo. The local Buddhist Priest is his parole officer, and he tells no one about his past. Although business is slow, and everyone looks at Yamashita strangely for keeping a pet eel, he quickly becomes a part of this small town. Especially once Keiko (Misa Shimizu) starts working there. She is a friend of the Priest’s, who came to this small town to kill herself. Yamashita found her and alerted authorities and saved her life. Now, she wants to repay him. She looks a lot like his wife, and he remains closed off emotionally towards her – only allowing himself to open up and talk to the eel. Then a figure from his past, and another from hers, both show up and throw things into chaos.

I have heard The Eel compared to the films of John Ford, and I really cannot think of a better comparison. Imamura’s portrait of this small town has the same sort of feel as Ford films like The Quiet Man, about an American returning to the small Irish village of his ancestors. Although the subject matter of The Eel appears to be dark, Imamura actually finds quite a bit of comedy in his characters and their surroundings. He has not made a deadly serious film about a disturbed murderer who talks to an eel. He has made a more thoughtful film about a man who has shut himself off from the world, afraid of getting hurt, who trusts the eel not to betray him like so many others have. Through his relationships with the other people in the town – especially Kieko – he learns to come out of his shell a little bit. Even when they find out the truth, they do no react in horror as we may expect, but seek to understand him.

The film climaxes with an absurd, sustained fight sequence that in my mind may push the comedy a little too far to really fit in with the rest of the movie. Yes, Imamura has portrayed his characters in the movie as ridiculous from the start, but he also feels a tremendous amount of sympathy for them – something that is nearly impossible to accomplish in a movie. But Imamura does so here. Yes, the film is messy – at times perhaps even confusing – and Imamura could have made a tighter film that may have been better. But then, it wouldn’t be his film. The Eel may not be quite as good as some of Imamura’s other films (and I do need to see more, although I love 1979’s Vengeance is Mine), but it is a fine film.

Movie Review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II

Monday, March 4, 2013

Movie Review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Directed by: Bill Condon.
Written by: Melissa Rosenberg based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer.
Starring: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), Mackenzie Foy (Renesmee), Maggie Grace (Irina), Jamie Campbell Bower (Caius), Christopher Heyerdahl (Marcus), Michael Sheen (Aro), Dakota Fanning (Jane), Cameron Bright (Alec), MyAnna Buring (Tanya), Lee Pace (Garrett), Joe Anderson (Alistair).

I have often been accused of liking movies where nothing happens. You know the movies I mean – the long, slowly paced ones that have a lot of talk in them and not a lot of action. The films of Kelly Reichardt (Old Joy, Wendy & Lucy and Meek’s Cutoff) are a prime recent example. But I always say that in those films, a lot happens, you just have to pay attention. The characters are struggling with their own morality, or with feelings they are trying to repress. It is all very subtle, but it’s very much there.

It may seem odd to start my final review of a Twilight film with talk of long, slow movies where subtle things are bumbling beneath the surface, but I think it’s appropriate. Because after reading all four of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight books, and watching all five movies based on those books, I have come to the conclusion that The Twilight Saga really is a series of books and movies in which nothing happens. The characters stare longingly at each other, and have long, serious sounding conversations about love, vampires, werewolves, the Volturri, sex, family and everything else – but none of it really means anything. The dialogue is horrid, and the meaning behind it all ridiculous. Worse yet, it seems like Meyer was so in love with what she created, that she takes out all real conflict in her stories. You read the books, and it seems like we have four novels leading towards and ultimate showdown with the Volturri – one in which nothing really happens and EVERYONE gets to live happily ever after. No one pays any sort of price for anything that happens. At least director Bill Condon and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg know enough to know we WANT to see a big confrontation, which they give us, even if it turns out not to be real.

The first hour of Breaking Dawn Part II is the worst this series has ever been – in fact, it’s as bad anything I have seen in recent years. In it, Edward and Bella deal with their young daughter Renesmee (the single worst name in history), and with Bella as a young vampire – incredibly strong and hungry. Everyone sits around looking very serious, and saying ridiculous dialogue to each other – especially if it involves Jacob and “imprinting”. Bella’s father is told that she is alive, but different – and seems to have no real problem with that. Then, of course, the Volturri – the powerful Italian vampires who run everything – find out about Reneesme, and embark on a journey to confront the Cullens. The Cullens gather their own forces, and it appears we are about to witness and epic vampire battle royale – which we do see, but it turns out not to be real.

My problem with the Twilight Saga has always been the same, and always been relatively simple. Nothing ever seems to be at stake in movies. There is never any real danger – we know that everything will be ok in the end, and so the movies lack any real dramatic tension. Perhaps even worse is that everyone seems so miserable for the entire running time of every movie. Love is hard, and is not all joy to be sure, but shouldn’t Edward and Bella – who end this saga in the most sickeningly cloying scene in the entire series, in a field full of flowers telling each other “No one has ever loved anyone as much I love you” seem at some point to be happy? They have spent the entire five movies looking, sounding an acting completely and totally miserable. I don’t even think it is either actor’s fault – this is clearly how these characters are supposed to behave, but sweet Jesus, does it ever get tiring.

You could argue, I suppose, that I am criticizing Twilight for not being the movie I want it to be, rather than the movie that it is. Fair enough, I guess. It always bugs me when people do this – telling filmmakers what they should have done, instead of just critiquing what they did do. Yet, in this case, what they did do is create a dramatically inert series of movies – movies with nothing of interest happening, with dour, boring characters, and horrible special effects - seriously folks, can you honestly looking at all the scenes of vampires running at full tilt in this movie – none worse than Bella taking off after that climber, and not burst into laughter at just how shoddy the special effects are? These movies make $300 million a pop, couldn’t they spring for better effects for the finale?

Still, I suppose that perhaps all I should do is just throw up my hands and admit the books and movies are not for me. Obviously, millions of teenage girls LOVE this series – both the books and the movie – beyond all reason, and they tend to be an underserved demographic, as Hollywood chases after the dollars of teenage boys, and simply assume girls will also show up. So, good for them I guess. I just wish the series treated these teenage girls with more respect – more respect for their ability to handle complex, intelligent plots and characters. There is no reason you couldn’t make a cheesy love story about vampires. But there is no reason that when you do, it has to be as dour and self-serious as the Twilight series.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Targets (1968)

Friday, March 1, 2013

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Targets (1968)

Targets (1968)
Directed by: Peter Bogdanovich.
Written by: Peter Bogdanovich.
Starring: Tim O'Kelly (Bobby Thompson), Boris Karloff (Byron Orlok), Arthur Peterson (Ed Loughlin), Monte Landis (Marshall Smith), NancyHsueh (Jenny), Peter Bogdanovich (Sammy Michaels), James Brown (Robert Thompson Sr.), Mary Jackson (Charlotte Thompson), Tanya Morgan (Ilene Thompson), Sandy Baron (Kip Larkin).

In his debut film Targets Peter Bogdanovich contrasted real life horror with the violence we see on movie screens. No matter how violent movies were then, or have become now, they always pale in comparison to what people actually do to each other. He came up with the idea for Targets when Roger Corman came to him and told him that he wanted the young writer to direct a movie. Boris Karloff, the famed horror legend, owed Corman two days of shooting and he wanted Bogdanovich to shoot 20 minutes in those two days, add in another 20 minutes from the 1962 film The Terror, also with Karloff, and then shoot another 40 minutes with other actors, thus making a full length film. After watching The Terror, Bogdanovich had no idea how to make a film using any of that footage – so he came up with an idea. Karloff would essentially play a version of himself, the footage from The Terror (which he did not use 20 minutes of), would be one of the characters movies (and a bad one at that), and then he would add in a story inspired by Charles Whitman – who after killing members of his family climbed the Bell Tower at Texas University and opened fire on the people below. The result was Targets, a surprisingly suspenseful film, which often gets mentioned on lists of the best directorial debuts of all time.

The movie opens in a screening room with Byron Orlok (Karloff) watching the conclusion of The Terror. He hates the movie and announces on the spot that he is retiring. This angers the head of the studio who has already put money into the next film by director Sammy Michaels (Bogdanovich himself) on the condition that Orlok was going to play the lead. But Orlok has had enough. He is tired of being viewed as a camp actor, his films no longer scaring audiences. He picks up the newspaper and points to a story about a massacre and says this is real horror, and he has had enough of the fake stuff. Grudgingly, he agrees to do a public appearance the next day at a drive-in, which will show the horror film. This will be his last public appearance, before he returns to England to enjoy his retirement.

It’s here where we meet Bobby Thompson (Tim O’Kelly). He is clean cut and handsome – an All American boy. We see him buying a rifle, and then putting it in the trunk of his Mustang – that already contains at least a dozen guns. We see him enjoy a nice family dinner with his parents and his wife, go target shooting with the old man, and then sitting down to watch TV with the family. These scenes are oddly disquieting, as they are seemingly innocent. But there is emptiness to Bobby – and really his entire family. They are playing the happy family, but they don’t feel like it. The next day, Bobby will murder his wife (as she comes over to kiss him) and his mother, and an innocent delivery boy. He leaves a note saying “I’ve killed my wife and my mother. I know they will catch me, but before they do, many more will die”. Then he heads out to prove the note correct – first shooting at cars on the freeway from his perch atop an industrial complex, and then heading to the same drive-in where Orlok will be that night.

There is a little bit of a disconnect between the two stories, but for the most part, they do work well together. The scenes with Karloff have a sad tone to them, even though on the surface, they are quite funny. Karloff knew by this point, very late in his career and his life that he was never really going to be taken seriously as an actor. His Orlok knows this two, and while he is resigned to the fact, there is a sadness about him as he goes through the motions for a last time. The scenes with Bobby are tense and amazingly well staged by Bogdanovich – especially when you consider that he was a first time director at the time. Bogdanovich doesn’t even try to answer the question of why Bobby does what he does – something that always frustrates some audiences, but for the most part works. When someone decides to try and kill as many people as they can, there is no real reason why. The climax at the drive in is tense and well staged, but the ultimate conclusion, although well directed and acted by Karloff, rings false.

When Bogdanovich was done Targets, he thought he had made a great movie, and didn’t want it to come and go as another quickie exploitation film by Corman, and convinced him to try and let Bogdanovich sell it to a major studio. Robert Evans saw it and loved it, but couldn’t get Paramount to buy it until Bogdanovich convinced two film critic friends of his to review it, then Paramount caved. Promptly after buying it, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were both assassinated, and all of a sudden a film about a sniper didn’t seem like such a good idea. They still released the film – barely – and although it got good reviews, audiences stayed away in droves (even though they added a Public Service Message to the beginning of the film about gun control). But Targets found its audience later on. It allowed Bogdanovich to make his next film, his masterpiece, The Last Picture Show (1971) and it gave Karloff his last great film role. While it is far from a perfect film, Targets is a film that gets it mostly right – and is still intense and intelligent all these years later.