Dennis Fights Back: American Horror Story 1.4: "Halloween, Part 1," Part 3

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's second post on "Halloween, Part 1" here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some more of Dennis's thoughts on the fourth episode of season one.

  

******

Whew. When they called it Labor Day they weren’t kidding. Oh, wait. The holiday is intended to be a break from work, a tribute to those who work their asses off all year. Yet unless I actively contrive to take some time off, it inevitably turns out to be a ludicrously busy weekend for me, work-wise and otherwise. On top of that, a family wedding-- a far happier priority, by the way—is taking precedence over everything else. So there’s not going to be a huge window of time to respond to your thoughts on “Halloween, Part 1,” but I’ll do my best.

Of course I’m disappointed that you didn’t care much for the episode. But in reading your post, and seeing the episode again for what now must be the fourth or fifth time, I was struck by how much of your reaction—specifically in regard to the general tone of (some of) the dialogue and how overwritten it tends to be at times, in this episode and in the series in general—I agreed with. I’d have to go back and look to be sure, but if I didn’t explicitly complain about it to you in one of the “Pilot” posts, this has been a sticking point for me from the beginning and at the risk of being slightly off-topic (or at least off-episode) I’ll bitch about it now in the hope of illuminating the current episode as well.

In interviews Ryan Murphy is understandably proud of his cast and likes to promote their talent and agility with the material, and I’ve heard him crow about how the vicious argument scene between Ben and Vivien that immediately precedes their passionate screw (the one we don’t see, which itself precedes the deeply disturbing screw Vivien has with the Rubber Man, which we do see) has been used in acting classes and how it wouldn’t be as effective without the element of emotional vitality that Dylan McDermott and Connie Britton bring to it.

Strange Apparition

262) The Apparition (2012) Dir: Todd Lincoln Date Released: August 24, 2012 Date Seen: August 23, 2012 Rating: 0.5/5

At first, the utter incompetence of this sub-Paranormal Activity knockoff* seems like it might be just intentional quirkiness. The film begins with a seance and then rapidly fast-forwards to a seemingly unrelated suburban scene. Then events keep unfolding at a hurried, though not necessarily urgent, pace. This is mostly because The Apparition was apparently edited with a hacksaw and Todd Lincoln has never spent talked to a living person. His tin ear for human speech, his cast's oddly unmotivated performances, and the slapdash chain of events that lead to an unearned pitch-black finale all make Lincoln's flick a  giant digital dooky of a film. In that sense, it reminded of The Devil Inside, another PA ripoff that is just as nakedly opportunistic and free of the generic ambition that made Oren Peli's film at least immediately compelling. Also, like The Devil Inside, the film is a shot-on-digital flick that tries and tries and FUCKING TRIES AGAIN to replicate the AV violence inherent in VHS home movies. And it especially fails on that level. What a piece of poop. #2 worst film of the year, for my money (Devil is worse).

*Note: Yes, I know that horror movies exist prior to PA. But this film is explicitly a rip-off of the trend revitalized by said film.

'Eep Arp Urp Ahh Ahh' (That Means: 'I Love You.')

RV!: Lawless (2012) Dir: John Hillcoat Date Released: August 31, 2012 Date Seen: August 22, 2012 Rating: 3.5/5

Still mostly engaging, maybe even a squinch more than last time. But yeah, the women, oh, the women. See my review for the Nashville Scene for more.

Editor's Note: it's up, it's up, it's up, it's in my heaaaad.

Get Behind Me, Jean Seberg

260) Bonjour Tristesse (1958) Dir: Otto Preminger Date Released: April XX, 1958 Date Seen: August 18, 2012 Rating: 3.5/5

261) Breathless (1960) Dir: Jean-Luc Godard Date Released: February 7, 1961 Date Seen: August 18, 2012 Rating: 4.25/5

This was a great double feature, one of the handful of reasons I'm very glad I got to go to DC two weekends past. I'm not nuts about Bonjour Tristesse, mostly because of Jean Seberg's voiceover (ARGH, NO, SHUT UP). But I do love the sea-side resort atmosphere of that film (reminds me of Xios, the Greek island where my mother is from), and I also rather enjoy, as Victor Morton put it during our brief post-screening discussion, the film's Sirk-ian melodrama. But yeah, eesh, that voiceover! 

Seberg is much more impressive in Breathless, a film that I'm very glad I got to see sans the academic expectations that cinema studies classes would require. Now I can quietly groove on the superficial but expansive pleasures of, say, the interview junket scene where Seberg musters up the courage to talk to Jean-Pierre Melville's sagacious authorial wind-bag.

Then again, my lack of knowledge is clearly a double-edged sword. I don't have as much of the historical context I'd like to fully process either film, y'know? So while I luxuriated in both of their anything-goes narratives, I was only totally immersed in the latter film during its final half hour, when the dragnet really starts to tighten around poor Jean-Paul Belmondo. That (probably) famous shot of Seberg explaining why she chose to rat on her lover is especially incredible, as is Belmondo's long scramble down the rue as he dies. I got similar feelings of visceral joy watching Seberg chase after her stepmother in Tristesse, trying in vain to prevent her from discovering the infidelity she helped to facilitate.

What I'm trying to say is: that was nice. Really hit the spot.

Simon's Cri di Coeur: American Horror Story 1.4: "Halloween, Part 1," Part 2

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting my first post on "Halloween, Part 1" here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of my thoughts on the fourth episode of season one.

  

******

Hiya, Dennis:

To begin, a confession: I skipped ahead and watched both "Halloween, Part 1" and "Halloween, Part 2." This is partly because I wanted to see how the two-parter ended and partly because I realized, with the Toronto Film Festival coming up next week, I'm probably going to have to skip ahead at some point to get all my required viewing in (I still need to get my computer issues resolved, alas. Word of advice: don't use Tekserve for your repair needs). That having been said, I did not find "Part 1" to be as compelling as you did. I know, I know, I'm no fun but I at least agree that the show starts to pick up soon. I just think it only returns to the standard of quality established by "Pilot" in "Halloween, Part 2."

There were a number of little things that bugged me about "Halloween, Part 1," and generally contributed to my dislike of the episode. For starters, again, the tone of the show is still too kitschy, for my money. I think this is even true of the declamatory way that Constance addresses Addy in the speech you highlighted where she mentions sharing men with Addy. If this were a habit of Addy's that I felt were more than just a tacked-on means for Constance to fight with Addy before her big accident, I'd be fine with this scene. But apart from a winningly vitriolic tirade from Jessica Lange, I just don't buy this scene. 

Dennis's Kickoff: American Horror Story 1.4: "Halloween, Part 1," Part 1

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's first post on "Halloween, Part 1" here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of Dennis's thoughts on the fourth episode of season one.

  

******

2010. Images of earthy domestic bliss as Chad (Zachary Quinto) bakes pies and meticulously carves pumpkins in anticipation of Halloween. But those images are tarnished quickly as Chad’s partner, Patrick (Teddy Sears) comes into the kitchen and the tensions between the two, based on Chad’s suspicions of Patrick’s promiscuous infidelities and their dire economic straits, explode. They are the previous owners of the Murder House now owned by the Harmons, and after Patrick stomps out in anger we see the event that Marcy was obligated to disclose when selling the house a year later. Someone appears to Chad in the kitchen dressed in the rubber suit that Vivien and Ben discovered in Episode 1. Chad of course assumes it’s Patrick, but we’re not sure— Patrick was none too happy when he left to get ready to go to the gym, but was he angry enough to jam Chad’s head in a bucket meant for bobbing apples and then snap his neck? Unlikely, as Patrick walks in on the assailant seconds later. Marcy, remember, mentioned in her description of the “murder/suicide” something about one of the victims having a poker shoved up his— But we don’t see any of this (yet), as the scene cuts away to the main titles.

(Is Marcy just passing along the conventional wisdom about these deaths being a murder/suicide, or does she know something and is just covering up? Because no coroner would conclude from a snapped neck and a death-by-fireplace-poker that one of the assaults was self-inflicted.)

Here Be Dragons

259) Dragon Inn (1967) Dir: King Hu Date Released: ??? Date Seen: August 15, 2012 Rating: 4.25/5

271) Flying Swords of Dragon Gate (2011) Dir: Tsui Hark Date Seen: August 27, 2012 Rating: 3.25/5

Great! And then good! See my piece on the latter film, in which I allude to the former film, in the Village Voice.

Editor's Note: eeeyeeeeeah.

Revisiting the Ludovico Technique

RV!: A Clockwork Orange (1971) Dir: Stanley Kubrick Date Released: February 2, 1972 Date Seen: August 17, 2012 Rating: 4.5/5

I hadn't rewatched Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange since reading Burgess's book in high school. I fell in love with the novel but I also seem to recall thinking that Kubrick's film was fine but unfulfilling. I, admittedly, had a relatively unrefined sense of taste when I saw Kubrick's adaptation (there's a reason I jokingly call my adolescence, "My Pre-Taste Period."). So greatly preferred Burgess's novel to the film that Kubrick made by the same name. This is partly because because I had seen the film first and then devoured the book. Last week, I rewatched Kubrick's film projected at the AFI Silver's biggest screen with my friend Victor Morton. Victor is a big fan of Kubrick's film; it's his #1 film of all time. Now, I can certainly understand why.

Kubrick's film has the kind of flinty cynicism I originally admired in Burgess's story, but it also has the subtle grace to deflate its character's sociopathic perspective. As Victor and I discussed after the film, A Clockwork Orange's narrative appears to be predominantly told from the perspective of Alex (Malcolm McDowell), right down to the voiceover narration that drove me up a wall in the first few scenes (mainly due to McDowell's performance). Where Victor and I disagree, I think, is just how deeply embedded we, as viewers, are in Alex's POV. I maintain that the film's world cannot just be read as Alex's subjective view of events. 

Here, There, Everywhere!

260) Somewhere Between (2011) Dir: Linda Goldstein Knowlton Date Released: August 24, 2012 Date Seen: August 17, 2012 Rating: 2/5

Found this one to be frustratingly thin. See my capsule review for the Village Voice for more.

Dennis's Reply: American Horror Story 1.3: "Murder House," Part 2

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's first and only post on "Murder House" here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of Dennis's thoughts on the third episode of season one.

  

******

Simon:

“Murder House” was an compelling episode for me in that I liked the sense I got of some of the pieces falling into place re the house’s history and the implications for some of the characters—by now it’s becoming clearer as to the trajectory and logic of the story, and Mssrs. Murphy and Falchuk do a good job of keeping us interested and setting the hooks for the elements that beg further development. I’m especially anticipating the storyline involving Nora and Charles (Nora Charles? Hardly the upper-crust blithe spirits of Myrna Loy, or William Powell, in operation here) and what might come of their grisly basement abortion operation, to say nothing of the contrast between Nora’s apparent resentfulness of motherhood, (Nora disregards her own child, and she more or less forces the abortion scenario upon Charles) and the desperate maternal longing she displays when she shows up in the present day.

I like the impending sense of the walls closing in on Ben the way that they do—the pileup of circumstances is almost farcical-- the potential uncovering of Moira’s burial place (Constance tries to deflect Ben not because she fears her act being discovered so much as she wants Moira to stay right where she is); the missing patient (and Ben’s missing patch of memory regarding what obviously happened to her in his office, something that left a pool of blood for Moira to clean up); the ever-present outside force of Larry undermining Ben’s sense of stability—to what purpose we remain unsure, but we have to believe there is one, right?; and the unnerving sound of the almost constantly ringing doorbell, which brings not only reminders of the home invasion but now a police investigator into the picture, and also Hayden, who isn’t crazy (her assertion), she’s just angry at being left behind at the abortion clinic. The pitch-black farce hits high gear when Hayden reveals to Ben that she did not go through with termination the pregnancy but instead plans to move to Marina Del Rey and make Ben’s life in climes ostensibly sunnier than the ones he left behind with her in Boston, well, even a little cloudier.

Yup, this is Definitely a Sequel to That Other Shitty Film

258) The Expendables 2 (2012) Dir: Simon West Date Released: August 17, 2012 Date Seen: August 13, 2012 Rating: 1.5/5

Really bad. I was supposed to interview JCVD for this but he canceled at the last minute. That not withstanding, this'n is only relatively better than the first Expendables. And that was pretty, pretty bad. The Expendables 2 just starts to skim the moronic "fail" curve I have. 1.5/5 is the point on my scale where you get a big fat "F." This movie deserves it, but I did want to like it enough that its utter incompetence didn't bug me as much as The Expendables did.

Maybe that's just because The Expendables 2 is a busier film than its predecessors, so its action scenes are slightly more exciting. At the same time, Expendables 2 is toxically cheesy in a stupid, I-hurt-myself-today kinda way. And the gunfight scenes, while better light, are ugly, incoherent and loud. Stallone and co. clearly took notes on what people responded to in the last film, as in the scenes with Dolph Lundgren flaunting his real-life rocket scientist-level knowledge, and the one scene where Jet Li gets in that dig about how Stallone and the boys now have to find another stereotype to kick around. Otherwise: a fire hose blasting horse piss. You want it? You can have it.

Almost Forgot About Mike Birbiglia

251) Sleepwalk with Me (2012) Dir: Mike Birbiglia and Seth Barrish Date Released: August 24, 2012 Date Seen: August 7, 2012 Rating: 3.25/5

Two great scenes (both at or around the La Quinta Inn) and a number of very good ones. See my interview with Ira Glass for Esquire.

Simon's Provocation: American Horror Story 1.3: "Murder House," Part 1

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting my first post on "Murder House" here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of my thoughts on the third episode of season one.

  

******

 

Hey Dennis:

Apologies for the delay. My computer is still in the shop. The good news is it is supposed to be done by today. The bad news is I expect I have to pay more money for additional parts. The ugly news is I don't have the money to pay for them or anything else until my next paycheck comes in....

Anyway, "The Murder House" moves American Horror Story's plot forward significantly. I mostly liked this episode with some major reservations. The episode begins with Moira's death. The year is 1983 and the lecherous owner of the titular house is feeling frisky. He wants Moira, but she doesn't want him. More to the point, she doesn't want to lose her job, having already regretfully had sex with her boss once before (this tryst is alluded to only in dialogue). But it turns out that the philandering man in question is actually Constance's husband. Constance walks in, shoots out Moira's eye, makes a sullen (But dramatic!) speech decrying her unfaithful hubby, and then shoots him dead.

Simon's Conclusion: American Horror Story 1.2: "Home Invasion," Part 4

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting my response to Dennis's post here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of my thoughts on the second episode of season one.

  

******

Hey, again

I appreciate that even-handed tone of your second post on "Home Invasion," Dennis. Mostly because I now readily admit I was jumping to conclusions in most regards. I mean, you asked me to so I blame you! But yeah, no, this is the

problem with writing about a serial narrative piecemeal as you watch it. It's also important to note I could not have my notes on the episode in front of me as my computer was and still is in the shop. So I'm tip-tep-typing this on my lil phone. Forgive the typos, please.

In any case, I hadn't even considered something as direct (re: Constance's motivation for the cupcake) as revenge for Violet harassing Addy. It's a crucial piece of evidence in my hare-brained argument so, uh, woops.

Dennis's Correction: American Horror Story 1.2: "Home Invasion," Part 3

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's response to my post here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of Dennis's thoughts on the second episode of season one.

******

Hey, Simon,

My apologies to you and anyone following this exchange for my tardiness in responding to your last post. As you’ve already implied, it’s been one of those weeks for me too.

I’ve never seen Nip/Tuck, though I have certainly heard plenty about its inconsistencies of tone and intent, so I can’t speak directly to that show. But given my relatively vast experience with Glee, the other hit show spawned from the creative loins of Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, one of the reasons why I resisted even watching American Horror Story for as long as I did (I only began looking at the episodes near the beginning of this summer) was because I wasn’t sure I needed a similarly flip take on a beloved genre. Horror has already been run perilously close to the ground with self-reflexive deconstructionism and a simple dearth of ideas on how to make overly familiar tropes scary and resonant again, and what I had seen from Mssrs. Murphy and Falchuk didn’t go far in making me think they were the ones that were going to make an enterprise like this work.

Simon's Lament: American Horror Story 1.2: "Home Invasion," Part 2

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting my response to Dennis's post here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for some of my thoughts on the second episode of season one.

 ************

Hey Dennis

You'll have to forgive this post's lack of focus; last week was not so good and today got off to a bit of a rough start. Also my notes on "Home Invasion" are on my laptop, which is currently in the shop for repairs. Guh.

Anyway, I think what makes Fulchuk and Murphy's thematic concerns uniquely "American" kinda speaks to what irritates me about the show's flip attitude. American Horror Story is set in Los Angeles because, so far, it's a story about our morbid conflation or celebrity and macabre crime. The fact that, as you said, "Home Invasion" is the first proper episode of the show is telling. Here is where Fulchuk and Murphy, the co-creators of Nip/Tuck, start to explain why physical beauty and fears of birth defects are a concern in this L.A.-based show. Simply put, it's because image is everything. We already know that Constance failed as an actress and that she almost exclusively disdains Addy for her physical deformities, as is shown with the mirror-lined closet. If nothing else, that closet is Constance's evil way of punishing Addy for reminding Constance of her failure to make it as a star. 

Dennis's Way: American Horror Story 1.2: "Home Invasion," Part 1

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's opening post on the show's second episode here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for Dennis's first thoughts on the second episode of season one.

************

As I said, back into the house we go. Not unlike the beginning of the pilot episode, which set us down immediately at the threshold of a key event from the past, specifically in 1978, once again we viewers find ourselves looking at the now familiar Harmon house as it was in 1968. The Fifth Dimension’s hit single version of “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In” is heard on the soundtrack as we come upon the outside of the house at dusk. It’s hard to tell if it’s just because we know we’re watching American Horror Story, but the use of the song takes on unaccountably, inevitably sinister vibes as we’re introduced to three young women descending the stairs, talking about being late and rushing out to see the Doors at the Hollywood Bowl. We realize, as they encounter two other women, Maria and Gladys, in the living room that the house is at this point in its history being used as a dormitory for nursing students. Maria and Gladys are invited to the concert by the three, but they opt to stay home—Maria is studying, Gladys (in uniform) looking as though she’s just spent a long day on an internship, is watching Laugh-In on television.

Sometime later (the TV is still on, but we’ve moved on to either an old movie or some generic drama) there’s a knock at the door. When she opens it (Yet another clue that we’re in the past—who would do such a thing in 2012?), a man, blood trickling from a wound on his head, pleads with Maria for assistance. “Excuse me, ma’am,” he says to her in a soft, sincere-sounding voice, “I don’t want to bother you, but I’m hurt and needing some help.” Maria hesitates but takes her calling seriously enough to allow him inside and begin treating his wound. While he lies on his back on the couch he notices the cross dangling from her neck and asks insinuatingly, “You think Jesus is going to save you?” She and Gladys, who is looking on, both smile and Maria responds that they’re both already saved. “We all are,” she says, implying that the school is obviously some sort of Catholic institution. 

Forgot About John Heard

253) Cutter's Way (1981) Dir: Ivan Passer Date Released: March 20, 1981 Date Seen: August 8, 2012 Rating: 4.25/5

Somehow, I almost forgot to jot down a note about this film. Which is probably a good indication of how frazzled I've been of late. Cutter's Way really bowled me over when I most needed a good, pulpy distraction. I can't say that the last week or more have been good for me. In fact, I realize now that I have spent way too much time apologizing fearfully for the way I feel. 

And the truth of the matter is: my cat died. When I say that, you already know what you think. I could tell you she was 18, going on 19 years old, that I cared for her deeply and that I held her as she leaked pus all over me and mewled quietly while we waited for a doctor to tell us there was nothing we could do (though not in so many words). But honestly, the bottom line is: my cat died. And that still hurts. She was my friend and I couldn't do jack to help her when she needed me to. She died alone in the basement in a cardboard box full of comic books, having cried for help all night. And I've cried about that for a couple of nights since then.

Seeing my own helpless-ness transplanted into a totally different context and treated like foolish romanticism in Cutter's Way was exactly what I needed the night after my cat died. The film's tone fit my mood perfectly, specifically the way that the film understood that Jeff Bridges's indecision (more specifically, his aggressive certainty that nothing can be done to affect significant change in a stranger's life) was just a matter of fact. The film's ending evinces a hard-edged cynicism that comes from a very real, human place. Bridges watches his friend die and all he can do is look up at the killer and say, "You did this." And the murderer replies, "What if I did?" Gut-punch.

In Praise of Paul Verhoeven's Elusive, Smartass Genius

RV!: Total Recall (1990) Dir: Paul Verhoeven Date Released: June 1, 1990 Date Seen: August 12, 2012 Rating: 4.5/5

After reading Vadim Rizov's typically thoughtful piece on Total Recall, the 1990 adaptation of Philip K. Dick's We Can Remember it For You Wholesale, I felt compelled to rewatch the film. I imagine that I'm like many other people in that I (often inadvertently) rewatch Paul Verhoeven's irreverent adaptation on a semi-regular basis. It's kind of ubiquitous, y'know?

In any case, I saw the new digital presentation of Total Recall on Sunday and found that, while I don't necessarily agree with all of Vadim's piece, I do think he's onto something. In the article, Vadim suggests that co-writer Dan O'Bannon's personal politics, the kind that helped to make Alien such an idiosyncratically thoughtful monster movie, make Total Recall a pro-Marxist film. The hero that Schwarzenegger plays is thus repositioned as a blue-collar everyman that's brainwashed into thinking that he's unthinkably unremarkable.

Is This Movie About a Time-Traveler/Eccentric Bad?

257) Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) Dir: Colin Trevorrow Date Released: June 8, 2012 Date Seen: August 10, 2012 Rating: 2.25/5

I like some of the performances in this film but its takeaway message/big ideas stink. I really resent this micro-trend in indie dramas where an eccentric, free-thinking loner is ostracized just because he's eccentric and thinks freely. I'm not kidding: Safety Not Guaranteed is a very specific kind of un-imaginative science fiction. It's the kind that doesn't deserve to be called, as Harlan Ellison once re-christened science fiction genre, "speculative fiction." Speculation implies curiosity and a sense of wonder, not the trite sense of entitlement that characterizes Mark Duplass's central protagonist. Duplass plays Kenneth, a man that puts an ad (pictured to the right) in a local newspaper  that attracts the attention of a snotty reporter and his two socially awkward interns. Aubrey Plaza is Darius, one of those two interns, specifically the one that discovers what ostensibly makes Kenneth so very special. 

Ugh, give me a second while I puke.

Look, the crux of Safety Not Guaranteed is discovering whether or not Kenneth, like 90% of the sociopathic but "special" subjects of films like K-PAX and Special, is actually a special, special nice, nice guy that is ahead of his time (haw!), or just a crazy, delusional loner dude. If you don't yet know what Kenneth really is, might I suggest giving up on cinema and then life? For serious, it's like trying to figure out the answer to the rhetorical questions posed in tabloid-worthy headlines: did Hitler kill the Jews? Will there be weather tomorrow? Is that a boner or is this writer just super-happy to see you and nobody else but you? Who knows?!

What I'm trying to say is: there's no question that Safety Not Guaranteed's creators pose that they don't smugly answer. So here, I'm going to help you guys out: 

Q: Is the guy next-door crazy or a super-special guy?

A: Super-special guy. Doy.

Q: Why is he super and/or special?

A: Because he just doesn't fit in, a point explained to Darius in almost as many words by Kenneth's old high school flame.

Q: But how does being ostracized make Kenneth necessarily special?

A: Shut up, that's why.

Q: Do any of these characters learn something about themselves that can't be taught via Fortune Cookie?

A: Hell no. Better yet, there's a song number performed on a zither that explains why being a loner and an outsider is a sign of super-special-ness.

Q: Is there seriously a zither song?

A: Uh yuh.

Q: Is the time machine cool, at least?

A: As cool as a motherfucking hydrofoil gets (ie: eh, not so much)!

Q: Why do you hate joy and sunshine time-traveling, special outsider-types?

A: Because somebody stole my rubber duck when I was a wee man...

David Koepp: The Interview, Part 2

254) Premium Rush (2012) Dir: David Koepp Date Released: August 24, 2012 Date Seen: August 9, 2012 Rating: 'BARGOED

255) The Trigger Effect (1996) Dir: David Koepp Date Released: August 30, 1996 Date Seen: August 10, 2012 Rating: 3.25/5

RV!: War of the Worlds (2005) Dir: Steven Spielberg Date Released: June 29, 2005 Date Seen: August 12, 2012 Rating: 3.75/5

Need more Koepp movies, please. See my upcoming profile on Koepp and his creative process in the Village Voice.

Editor's Note: I got this for you. This, too.

I Don't Know, Why Not?

252) Why Stop Now? (2012) Dir: Phil Dorling and Ron Nyswaner Date Released: August 17, 2012 Date Seen: August 8, 2012 Rating: 1.75/5

I wanted to like this pretty badly but it's so shrill and empty. See my review for the Village Voice, link to come.

Editor's Note: Here ya go.

Politics, Man.

251) The Campaign (2012) Dir: Jay Roach Date Released: August 10, 2012 Date Seen: August 7, 2012 Rating: 3/5 

It was ok, but yeah, it's not that good. Review for the Nashville Scene, link to come.

Editor's Note: you want some of this hot fiyah, mom?

Needs More Stacy Keach

249) The Bourne Legacy (2012) Dir: Tony Gilroy Date Released: August 10, 2012 Date Seen: August 6, 2012 Rating: 2.5/5

It's underwhelming. Review for Capital New York, link forthcoming.

Editor's Note: screw you, Supermaaaaaan!

Goodbye, Ruby Sparks

247) Ruby Sparks (2012) Dir: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris Date Released: July 25, 2012 Date Seen: August 4, 2012 Rating: 2/5

It's not so good. Review for the Nashville Scene, link to come.

Editor's Note: I reviewed this here.

David Koepp: The Interview, Part 1

RV!: Death Becomes Her (1992) Dir: Robert Zemeckis Date Released: July 31, 1992 Date Seen: August 4, 2012 Rating: 3.5/5

RV!: Ghost Town (2008) Dir: David Koepp Date Released: September 19, 2008 Date Seen: August 5, 2012 Rating: 4/5

248) The Paper (1994) Dir: Ron Howard Date Released: March 18, 1994 Date Seen: August 6, 2012 Rating: 3.75/5

Some research for my upcoming feature on David Koepp for the Village Voice. Watch this space.

Editor's Note: ARRRGH, COME ON, FUCKING LINK. 

"When Will Then Be Now?" "Soon."

RV!: Spaceballs (1987) Dir: Mel Brooks Date Released: June 24, 1987 Date Seen: August 5, 2012 Rating: 3.75/5

I still laugh a lot. See my piece at Movieline; it's this week's Inessential Essential.

Editor's Note: Looka here.

Dennis Ends the Beginning: American Horror Story 1.1: "Pilot," Part 6

Dennis Cozzalio and I are going to recap American Horror Story's first season at our respective blogs. Each Monday, one of us will will start the discussion and we'll go back-and-forth on our respective blogs. I am posting Dennis's response to my third post here, but you can also follow along with our conversation at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read on for Dennis's concluding thoughts on the first episode of the show's first season.

************

Simon,

I tend to agree about the use of the Twisted Nerve cue in the sequence involving Tate and the imagined (or are they?) high school murders. It’s distracting not because of the fact that it’s a recognizable sampling of Bernard Herrmann’s music, but because it’s already been appropriated and now associated strongly with Tarantino’s movie, so it’s like a reflection of a reflection. I would argue that it’s now, since the release of Kill Bill, probably even more strongly associated with that movie, and with the shot of Daryl Hannah moving down the hospital corridor toward the immobile Uma Thurman, than with the film for which it was originally written, which I’m guessing 99% percent of the appreciative Tarantino audience has never even seen (or at least never heard of before they saw Kill Bill Vol. 1).

It doesn’t seem so much a clever choice on the part of Murphy and Falchuk to include it either, largely I think because it now seems too obvious, but also because it also plays a little lazy, as if they’re going for a quick and easy bit of pop culture cachet rather than searching out another sample or, heaven forbid, a piece of original music that could evoke the same emotional response they’re going for. I think they miss the opportunity by using the Herrmann cue, and I think, as you suggest, they fall short of understanding here what separates Tarantino from the usual suspects when it comes to this kind of borrowing. It’s the meaning of the scene that is, if not entirely missing, then at least hopelessly confused by their easy grab of Herrmann’s odd little theme.

I Bet Dr. Freudstein's Retainer Fee is Just OUTRAGEOUS.

246) House by the Cemetery (1981) Dir: Lucio Fulci Date Released: March 1, 1984 Date Seen: August 3, 2012 Rating: 3/5

The direction of this mostly brain-dead chiller, a haunted house flick whose barely teased-out subtext is much more interesting than its basic plot, is everything to me. And I don't just mean the way that Fulci over-uses extreme close-ups of twitching, in-dire-need-of-a-wax eyebrows. Or the way Fulci's animated camera snakes around the titular house. Or even Fulci's perverse sense of humor. Or the sadistically decisive way people die in his films!

Well, maybe it's largely this latter point. When people die in a Fulci film, it's as if a big, sweaty, fat, hairy authorial hand has descended from on-high and is almost fatally stabbing His victims with his big honking Authorial Index Finger. "You," the voice seems to say. "You die violently!"

Anyway, it's probably a combination of these things. As with many Italian horror films I kinda like in spite of myself, House by the Cemetery is threadbare material made better by a director with a modicum of personality and ghoulish wit. Here, that's because Fulci has put his id on the screen. In fact, it's obvious that Fulci does not know how, once you get him going, to stop putting his id on the screen. I've always liked that about his films and that's probably why I want to devote a little time (maybe a chapter or so) to him in particular in my book-that-will-never-become-a-book-because-I-do-not-have-the-time-and-energy-but-I'm-trying-ma-I'm-trying-somebody-give-an-advance-please-and-a-book-deal-oh-god-why. 

So yeah, I like it. Dumb as dirt and not that good and the print was lousy and it had Dutch subtitles and the audio mix was teh pitz for the first two reels and I'm jealous that Gavin Smith got to introduce the film and I didn't and stuff. But I like it.