The Adaptation Complaints #4 - It's A Wonderfull Life

The Exorcist.... of course I'm bringing it up again but this time I have a slightly more legitimate reason since today I am bringing up one of the sequels. Is it the 1977 beautiful mess that is John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic? Probably not right now but I might get to it at some point, if only I can bring up how much I wish Christopher Walken was Father Lamont. No, today I am bringing up the third movie in the series, 1990's Legion (aka Exorcist III but I'd prefer to call it Legion) based on the book of the same named written by William Peter Blatty in 1983, who also directed the movie (his second and last turn in the director's chair). I wouldn't necessarily call the book nor the movie a sequel since it doesn't really follow the main characters of the first film while also knocking out the second film in continuity (or it just ignores the events) so I guess it would be best to call the story itself a side-quel of sorts.

Since this doesn't involve any of the main characters of the previous story, then who is the main focus here? That would be minor character Lieutenant William Kinderman, investigating some mysterious murders that call back to the Gemini Killer, who had died fifteen years prior (twelve years in the novel). There are some familiar faces thrown in there yet the focus is always on Kinderman, his search for the truth, and his own philosophical musings on the world. The book is more of a philosophical horror film that is more of a slow burn that is more about the existence of evil in the world among other things and the movie does go into that aspect pretty faithfully, at least until the ending which does take the tone into an abrupt direction but I'll get to that when I do.

The easiest comparison I can make where the movie deviates with the book is with its main character but there is a pretty good reason why that may be. In the first Exorcist, the role of Kinderman was played by Lee J. Cobb, who passed away in 1976 which I think is a huge shame since it would have added to the whole character change a bit more but they got George C. Scott to play Bill in this movie so there is someone that is rather respectable in the role still. Maybe because of all of that, it is obvious to compare the way the two of them play the same character with Cobb being more of a relaxed yet concerned individual who was always a step ahead without giving it away (best example of this being the scene where he is talking to Chris in the house) while Scott is more of a pessimist who might be more so due to the return of the pattern of the Gemini Killer yet he still remains friends with Father Dyer after all of these years, spending the day with him at every anniversary of Karras' death since. The added pessimism is a change for the film since in the book, Kinderman is constantly going on philosophical tangents about the concept of evil; it is there in the movie but the main difference in the adaptation is his belief system which plays in his interactions with Tommy Sunlight. In the book, he is more of a believer while in the movie, he is all but stated to be an atheist.

The nonbeliever aspect does play into his interactions with Tommy in the hospital which play out differently yet similarly as well. The difference being the ending but let's get to the Gemini Killer, who is given a backstory in the book where his name is James Vennamun, the son of a evangelical preacher who abused him along with his brother for most of their life; more so with his brother, who was left mentally unstable and died due to a slight moment of ignorance by the hospital staff. The motive for the killings is the same, that being so James can shame his father, since his son is a serial killer. A major difference is the supposed death of the Gemini Killer, where it was assumed he had been in hiding in the book, where in the movie, he was clearly executed. Let's bring up perhaps the best reason to watch the movie though, and that is Brad Dourif playing the Gemini Killer, there really just for the audience since Kinderman only sees Karras when looking at him.

One thing that can happen with adaptations is adding a character or removing one for whichever reason, being that his involvement doesn't impact the story, time constraints, the list can go on. This movie does both where a character is removed while the added character is there mainly for the new ending. First the character who doesn't show up, that being Dr. Amfortas who works at the hospital along with Dr. Temple, whose role in the movie is severely reduced, which might have been due to the changes since during the scene he is being interviewed by Kinderman, some shots show his notepad with weird writing which alludes to him being involved with the Gemini Killer in some form. Back to Dr. Amfortas, his role in the book is small but it does play more into the connection with the force that brought James into the body of Karras (SPOILER), as his story revolves around him trying to communicate with his dead wife. Amfortas dies in an accident in the book which was probably caused by James in some form so that ends his story. Who did they get to replace him? Father Paul Morning, who does feel like a last minute addition into the story which makes sense due to the fact that he is the main force behind the new ending. Throughout the movie, they cut to him just sitting at a church pew with nothing else really going on which is kind of a shame really.

I kept talking about it so let's get to it: the ending. First, the book version. Tommy Sunlight feels that his father has died, thus his reason for killing is gone so he decides to call Kinderman to his room and let the Lieutenant know everything about how he had been able to go through his recent killing spree along with the why of it all before forcing himself to have a heart attack and die. A rather anti-climatic ending yet I think it works really well, especially with the whole theme of the concept of evil that kept playing out in the narrative.As for the movie, because the studio made Blatty shoehorn in an exorcism scene, Father Morning shows up to the cell ready to perform an exorcism to remove the evil souls from Karras' body but it goes as well as you expect with James' "master" aiding and seemingly killing Father Morning, while Kinderman comes and the two of them manage to kill the evil entities. Despite the fact that it comes off as really abrupt, I actually don't mind the ending at all although I still wish the original ending still existed or at least isn't lost among the shuffle of the cutting room floor. I hope I haven't spoiled the book and film too much since I think you should give Legion and The Exorcist III a chance despite the cries against it. The movie is a rather faithful adaptation compared to most book to film adaptations and a really good horror film that doesn't rely on blood and gore that much, mainly mood and atmosphere. So, again, give both a shot.

EDIT: didn't realize this was my 50th post. So... cool. Hopefully it won't take me as long to get to 100

So... is this really that bad? #5 - Savage Streets

I think that anyone who has read my blog knows that one of my favorite movies is The Exorcist and that against all odds, one things that doesn't get enough credit is the cast in that movie. The leads included Ellen Burstyn who got her second of three Oscar nominations in four years (winning a year later for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore); the classic badass actor and frequent collaborator of Bergman, Max Von Sydow; Pulitzer Prize winner Jason Miller and a supporting role by Lee J. Cobb of 12 Angry Men and On The Waterfront fame among other things. And yet perhaps the most recognizable star of the movie is also the whose career most people don't know past the sequel would be Linda Blair. I mean I'm not sure most people know about her filmography post -1977 and part of that is the kind of movies that she ended up being in after that, from the roller disco movie Roller Boogie to women in prison movies like Chained Heat and Red Heat, as well to the movie of topic today, the 1984 vigilante flick Savage Streets.

To be noted though, I'm sure that if anyone follows the Razzies should recognize this movie as being one of a trifecta when Blair won the Worst Actress award, paired up with Night Patrol and Savage Island. This is also one of those movies where I only know three of the actors in the movie. Aside from Blair, there is John Vernon who despite barely being in the movie gets second billing, probably because he is the only other name actor, most remembered as being Dean Vernon from Animal House. And then there is scream queen Linnea Quigley, a year away from her most mainstream role in Return of the Living Dead. Other than that, I have no clue who any of these people are and judging by their acting abilities, they probably didn't have much of a career anyway. Also of note is that this is one of the few films in the resume of director Danny Steinmann, whose other films included the classic porn film High Rise and one of the more notorious sequels of the Friday the 13th franchise, A New Beginning.

But let's get to the movie itself, which is a weird one to say the least. Since it is the 80's, a trend that exists throughout movies like this is that all of the "teenagers" in the movie are played by people in their 20's, which might have to do with the large amount of nudity in the thing, from a shower scene in a high school gym to a zooming shot of Linda Blair's character Brenda laying in a bathtub and the gang rape scene that becomes the starting point for the revenge aspect. Structure wise, this movie moves a lot slower than you'd expect from an 80's vigilante film, reminding me almost of the pacing of Mad Max, where the whole getting revenge all takes place within the last act of the movie, the first two thirds more or less setting up the why it is happening.

The movie begins with Brenda and her friends, along with her deaf mute sister Heather (played by Quigley) walking through town while being harassed by a gang called the Scars. They retaliate by trashing their car, which leads the gang to start taking their revenge on the girls by first gang raping Heather and then killing one of the friends, Francine, by throwing her off of a bridge. This leads Brenda to go kill the gang members on her own. All throughout the movie, you could tell that Blair was having fun with the role of playing a rebellious teenager but when it gets to the final minutes, she really embraces the whole vigilante aspect of her character making it all the more enjoyable when she kills off the Scars. Linnea Quigley does a really good job here as well, playing a character that has no dialogue making the rape scene all the more unsettling. That moment does have a jarring structure tone wise since while that is going on, Brenda is fighting with another girl in the locker room/showers and that is played off more campy, the easiest comparison I could make to this being similar moments from Last House on the Left but I think it works better here since the camp in that movie does get to be a bit much.

Overall, I'd say that if you're a fan of sleazy 80's films, you might like this movie. It probably isn't for everyone though. I myself like it although something did feel off about it. The first two thirds did set up this kind of rival gang battle between the girls and the Scars that the movie didn't capitalize on by having Brenda take on the gang by herself. And while I do enjoy seeing Linda Blair acting all badass, I think it would have worked better if the girls all got together for their revenge. From an interview with Steinmann, he wanted to have the group thing be there but lost out to one of the producers so that does provide an explanation. Still, the movie is an alright watch for what it is and it does make me want to actually see more of the post Exorcist II career of Blair.

So... is this really that bad? #4 - 8 Million Ways to Die

How did this movie come to my attention? As usual, I get introduced to movies like this from my source of entertainment and reviews for new movies, thecinemasnob.com and the Midnight Screenings show. The episode specifically that this movie was brought up was during their review for A Walk Among the Tombstones, which was based on a book written by Lawrence Block, part of a series following the character of Matthew Scudder, played in that movie by Liam Neeson. In it, Brad mentioned that Scudder had appeared in a movie before, that one being the topic for today, 8 Million Ways to Die. The credits of note for this movie seem almost surreal, from the director (Hal Ashby, of Harold and Maude, Coming Home, and Being There fame. This also was the last film he directed), one of the screenwriters (Oliver Stone, post- Scarface but pre Platoon and Salvador), having Jeff Bridges in the role of Scudder and Andy Garcia as the main villain. It's a strange collection of individuals coming together for this movie, and strangely enough this movie did not do well at all. Only making around $1.3 million at the box office against an $18 million dollar budget, there was also the dismal critical status, being a movie that has the dreaded 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (with a 33% audience rating and a 5.6 on IMDB, so it has that going for it). The 0% was what made me want to do this since it does exemplify the whole "Is the movie THAT bad?" aesthetic that this series tries to strive for.

To start this off, it really does feel like an 80's movie through and through, through the styles of clothing and the way the film feels. I can't really explain it but it does fit the 80's cop film mold and most of the time, it doesn't take me out of the movie but rather makes my brain take myself back to that period of time, the one that does this best though would be To Live and Die in LA, which I will save for another time. The movie begins with Scudder, at this point in time an LA cop who is also an alcoholic, being a part of a drug bust gone wrong where he kills a suspect in front of the man's family, the guilt causing him to sink more into his alcoholism, leading to the destruction of his career and his relationship with his wife and daughter. This does differ from the original backstory regarding the breaking point of him trying to become sober, which was similar to the way it was portrayed in A Walk Among the Tombstones, but it does get him to start going to Alcoholics Anonymous while taking up work as a private investigator. It is during one of these meeting where the plot begins to take form, when he is handed a note to go to a private club. The woman, named Sunny, tries to convince him to help her escape her life, under the guise of no longer wanting to deal in prostitution. Of course in movies like this, something goes wrong and there is more to the situation than meets the eye.

Overall, I should say that the acting in this movie is rather solid, at least from the perspective of the male leads. Bridges does a good job in the role of a recovering alcoholic, especially the scene early on when he relapses and wakes up in a drunk ward, all the while carrying himself well as a PI trying to piece together the mystery of what is really going on. Garcia is a pretty fun 80's villain with the name Angel Moldonado, There are some times where he appears to be having a lot of fun in the role and hamming it up quite nicely. There is also the small appearance of one Tommy "Tiny" Lister, who I'll probably remember forever for his role as Zeus in No Holds Barred and he's alright. But then we get to the actresses, who I wouldn't say are completely bad but they are one of the low points of the film. First being Sunny, played by Alexandra Paul; the only other movie I can remember her being in was Christine so I can't really judge her acting abilities from this, neither can I for Rosanna Arquette, who plays another lady of the night also serving as Matt's love interested Sarah. I just didn't find them that interesting aside from a few pieces of dialogue from Sunny, mainly one piece of dialogue from when she tries seducing Scudder in his apartment.

Structure and editing wise, sometimes the movie feels like a mess. That does have a reason though since because Ashby as a director was known for being a terror during the post-production process he was fired on the last day of shooting, so he didn't get to see through his vision for the film. Instead, it was left in the hands of editors Robert Lawrence and Stuart Pappe, the latter I can't figure out what else he's done but the former was Oscar nominated for Spartacus (this was at the tail end of his career though). In a situation like that though, it can be easy to assume that things do get lost in translation and the movie suffers from it, a prime example being the transition from Sunny's murder to Scudder waking up in the drunk ward being confusing and I didn't get that was what happened the first time I saw it. I'm not sure I should talk about this movie more though since I'd rather have people gauge the experience on their own but I guess I could leave off on this: if you're curious about the movie for any reason, give it a shot. I wouldn't consider it to be a good movie for the most part but it is better than the 0% RT rating it's given. I hope that 80's Jeff Bridges is enough to convince you to give this a try.

Post: I've decided that I'm not going to plan the posts for this one ahead of time since I do prefer this to be a spur of the moment kind of thing. I have an idea for the next one though if I decide to write it today, that being the 1984 Linda Blair vigilante film Savage Streets, which could be fun to talk about.