How Movies Age

The other day I woke up to a startling realization: I was considerably less annoyed that No Country For Old Men won the Best Picture Oscar than I was just a couple of months ago. Of course, such a statement would lead someone to make a number of incorrect assumptions. Those would be:

1. That I originally hated No Country For Old Men (I actually gave it three and a half stars and it made my runners-up list for the best films of 2007)

2. That I’m admitting I was somehow “wrong” about the film (there’s no such thing as being “right” or “wrong” about a movie. It’s a subjective opinion).

3. That I’m “giving in” to popular opinion on the film and letting it influence my opinion.

I suppose it’s a testament to just how well that movie was received critically that my mostly positive, almost four-star review of it could be misconstrued as being negative. I was having a conversation with a friend a little over a month ago about the film and they happened to be among the many who thought it was hands down the best of the year. Despite our mutual respect for one another’s opinions on film and other matters, I braced myself for a little squabble.

He knew I liked the film but was also one of those viewers who felt “cheated” and let down by the ending. Much to my surprise, he said he could see where I was coming from and rather than argue he just asked me to read this Chicago Sun Times letter to the editor. He said it was from a guy writing how the film basically changed his outlook on not just how he views, but life in general. I thought, “What a load of crap, the guy who wrote it is probably some old man” But I checked it out anyway.
I figured the author would have some heavy lifting to do in explaining how this well-made but mostly sterile and emotionally empty exercise touched him in any meaningful way. When I was done reading what was not only a beautifully written piece, but a passionate cinematic deconstruction of a film that clearly meant a lot to this man I was left pretty much speechless. Whether or not every piece of his analysis of the picture was exactly on point was irrelevant. Only the Coen Brothers could answer that, and judging from their Oscar acceptance speech, you probably wouldn’t get a lot out of them.

I was just impressed the film could even be analyzed so deeply because I never saw that much there. The letter just couldn’t leave my mind so I decided to give the film another watch, which would be my third. I have to say it was by far the best viewing which isn’t a huge surprise since the second was just really to prove to myself I was right in thinking it was overrated.

I still think There Will Be Blood is better and more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar but the gap isn’t nearly as wide now than it was a couple of months ago. If I were to review No Country For Old Men again now I wouldn’t go as hard on it for the ending. I still say it’s overrated and didn’t move me enough emotionally, but I can now at least understand why many would disagree. I definitely don’t expect any kind of pat on the back for revisiting or re-evaluating my opinion of a film but sometimes I think it sure would be nice to not be ridiculed for it.

You’d be shocked how many people are insulted if my opinion of a film evolves in any way over time for whatever reason. I’m willing to see any movie (even one I didn’t particularly care for) twice or more if it means there’s even the slightest chance I’ll take anything out of it I didn’t get the viewing before. So is my opinion “influenced?” I damn sure hope it is. When my mind closes and I’m not willing to hear alternate viewpoints on a film or consider new possibilities when I re-watch them then I may as well hang it up.
My recent re-evaluation of that film got me thinking about a much larger, directly related issue that’s been on my mind a lot lately: How movies age. As months and years go by perceptions of certain films tend to change and evolve and it can happen due to any number of factors. In my case, with the nauseating Oscar hype behind me, I was able to step back and consider a new viewpoint on the film and go in with a more level head. Now more than ever in this DVD age, multiple viewings play a huge role in our perceptions of films over time. No Country For Old Men is a meager example since it was released only last year but that my opinion of it is significantly higher now than it was months ago probably bodes well for its long-term future (at least in my eyes). Still, it’s too early.

When I reviewed There Will Be Blood I remarked that it’s more than likely to show up on the next American Film Institute List of the 100 Greatest Films. But I could be completely wrong. In a couple of years everyone could be going around referring to it as “that milkshake movie starring that guy with the funny voice.” I know, highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. I always used to think all-time lists like theirs and those of Sight & Sound Magazine (both of which are updated every 10 years) showed a clear bias toward much older titles. They do, but part of me can’t blame them since it seems a lot of time and distance is required to properly judge a film’s place in history. But sorry, I still say it’s kind of ridiculous to claim that no film since 1941 has been better than Citizen Kane.

Whenever I assign a film with a star rating I’m doing it with a pencil since the very notion of star ratings is ridiculous in itself. It’s just a false attempt to hand out quantitative verdicts to something that’s anything but objective or quantitative. I try my best not to adjust a rating after I’ve given it because that just gives the whole system more credence than it deserves but it has happened on a few occasions. With most of my reviews there’s no need to look back but if there is a change in my opinion I’d far prefer to review the film again or express it in pieces like this rather than just adding or subtracting a star.

Lately, I’ve found myself in the strange position of defending 2006’s Miami Vice. I say strange because I bashed it very hard in my review but now when I talk with people about it I have problems naming anything I didn’t like. I've even caught myself calling it the "most beautifully shot movie of 2006" and complaining that Gong Li was overlooked for a Best Supporting Actress nomination. All this for a film I gave 2 stars to. Stuff like this doesn't happen often with me but it does happen. Maybe the proliferation of far worse big screen TV show adaptations has softened my stance or it could be it’s just one of those movies that needs to linger in the mind for a while (highly unusual for an action film).
Looking back I can now respect that Michael Mann didn’t treat the material as a joke and was serious about putting a real cinematic spin on the elements from his show. Did it all work? Of course not, but at least the project had artistic ambitions of some sort. Even if you think he failed, he at least did so with dignity, making the right creative decisions. It isn’t The Dukes of Hazzard or Bewitched. I’ve yet to re-watch it but it sure feels like I have because the movie's been playing in a continuous loop in my mind since. There's little doubt that when I do eventually re-watch it it'll look a whole lot better to me than it did the first time.

In the midst of all the internet controversy surrounding M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening I read many critics and viewers reminiscing about better days in the writer/director’s career and all the potential that’s been wasted. They were reminded of the one time he was able to deliver a true masterpiece bursting with originality and creative energy. Except they weren't talking about The Sixth Sense. They were referring to Unbreakable, Shyamalan’s 2000 follow-up that flopped at the box office.

To say the film’s reception was lukewarm when it was released would be a massive understatement. Now it’s looked at as one our most original comic book movies and everyone’s begging for a sequel. So before Shyamalan goes back to Philly and hangs his head he can at least console himself with the fact that time has reversed Unbreakable’s failure and now it’s as respected as he’d hoped. I always thought I was the only person alive who liked the film so it's great to see it has so many fans.

This happens a lot with “cult classics,” which critics in general have always been awful at predicting. Of course they would be because the movies aren’t made for them. In this case critics really need serious from audiences because movie fans see something in those films that they can’t. Critics can sometimes get too close and become too caught up in objectively analyzing their script, direction and performances.
The cult classics slip through a little space in between those elements and connect with their intended audience in a special way. 90’s era cult teen films like Empire Records and Can’t Hardly Wait are good examples of this. Neither boast great performances or a brilliant script and flopped in every way when they first came out. But the critics couldn’t see what a relatively small segment of the moviegoing population could and what a few extra years would reveal: That both films nailed that time period and age group down perfectly.

Anyone that age or who grew during that period could relate to the characters and each were made with so much heart and sincerity that you couldn’t help but feel an attachment. It probably helped the nostalgia factor that some of the actors from those films went on to become big stars. The same can be said for the similarly themed teen comedies, Fast Times At Ridgemont High and 10 Things I Hate About You, both of which later gained a sizable cult following.

When you consider the number of movies released every year from all the studios the cult classic club is actually very small and exclusive. I know if I were a filmmaker and my picture won an Academy Award I’d be incredibly honored, but if I ever made a movie that became a cult classic you'd probably have to scrape me off the floor.

To have your movie acknowledged in critical circles is nice but there's something really special about knowing you skipped that step and headed straight to the average moviegoer's soul. It’s one thing to win an Oscar, but it’s another to have fans throwing conventions for your film once a year. There’s a reason you don’t see lines stretching for blocks with people dressed as Gandhi or Forrest Gump. They’re dressed as The Dude. Some movies are made for critics and others are made for fans. Really special ones are made for both.

Cult Classic Corner: The Warriors

Director: Walter Hill
Starring: Michael Beck, James Remar, Deborah Van Valkenburgh, Roger Hill, David Patrick Kelly, Dorsey Wright, David Harris, Lynne Thigpen
Running Time: 93 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 1979

***1/2 (out of ****)

"Warriors...come out to play-ay!"

A while back I was having a conversation with someone who told me can't stand it when people bitch and complain about how unsafe the New York City Streets are. He said if they think it's unsafe now he'd like to see them try to last two minutes in the late 70's and early 80's. He's right. We've actually come a long way. Or have we? Did that time period just feel more dangerous? It wasn't long before our conversation shifted to Walter Hill's 1979 cult classic, The Warriors. Even though the film is supposedly taking place in the future, there's no mistaking where it's really coming from. This is a movie very much a product of its own time and era. Everything about the film, from it's music, to its setting, to its whole feel just screams late 70's and early 80's New York. If that's the future, we're in for a rough ride.

It's rare I praise a film for being all style and no substance but this is one of those exceptions. It needs no substance. The movie doesn't really say anything important thematically, the acting is average at best, the story at times feels like one big practical joke, yet the whole thing works. In fact, it not only works, but it holds up just as well, if not better, today than it did in 1979. It's constantly quoted and referenced in pop culture circles, was given a special edition DVD treatment in 2005, was made into a very popular video game and now there's a remake in the works. It's amazing to think that at the time of its release the film actually inspired gang violence since by today's standards there's so little of it in the film and the whole movie feels more like a cartoon come to life.

I think it was the movie's depiction of gang mentality and message of rebelliousness that inspired the violence rather than the violence itself. The fight scenes are staged like dance sequences and the uniforms of the gang members look more like something you'd wear on Halloween. Walter Hill has gone on record to say he was interested in turning the source material of Sol Yurik's 1965 novel into a contemporary live action comic book and he succeeded. The 2005 special edition DVD hammered this point home by actually adding animated comic book transitions between scenes, which is a change that surprisingly helps clarify the tone of a film that was always slightly misunderstood. This surrealism is all set against the backdrop of a very gritty, realistic New York, making for an always interesting, well-paced movie that, while no masterpiece, isn't that easy to forget.

It's midnight in New York City and a summit is called by the messiah-like leader of the Gramercy Riffs gang, Cyrus (an electrifying Roger Hill) with the intention of calling a truce between all the gangs in New York. His plan is to unite them all against the NYPD, whose stranglehold over them and the city is slipping. It sounds good (especially in his unforgettable speech) but in reality it's just a pipe dream. During his speech he's fatally shot by Luther (David Patrick Kelly), leader of a gang called the Rogues, who end up framing The Warriors for the murder during the ensuing chaos. The Riff's beat their leader to death and The Warriors find themselves on the run and every gang in New York has a bounty on their heads. With their second in command Swan (Michael Beck) now in charge, a loose cannon named Ajax (James Remar) and a feisty girl from the streets, Mercy (Deborah Van Valkenburgh) tagging along, they try to make it back home to Coney Island by morning. It's getting there alive that's the problem.

I have to admit I love movies that take place over the span of one night or one day and focuses on characters that have a certain set time to accomplish what they need to stay alive. It always adds a certain forward momentum and urgency to the proceedings, giving the film a narrative focus it doesn't have if it takes place over the span of a couple of weeks or months. I'm not a screenwriter, but I'm guessing if you outlined your story in that manner it would likely become a hell of a lot easier to write. There should be a new rule that no action movie can go over the 24-hour time limit because very rarely, if ever, have I seen a movie employ this device and fail. The protagonists in the film have a clear problem and there's only one way it can be solved: They must get from point A to point B without being killed and they must do it by morning. So simple, yet so effective. A journey and a destination.

It's amazing how many action movies have problems doing this and get sidetracked, but Hill takes it a step further by using the New York subway system as a character to get them there. One station leads to another and at each stop is a different set of obstacles and gangs preventing them from reaching their destination. And how about those gangs? This is the movie's crowning achievement. Each gang has what can best be described as a gimmick of sorts, with their costumes and names suggesting their personalities. It seems ridiculous when you think about it (and it kind of is), but it adds a campy, entertaining feel to the picture that becomes even more of a blast on repeated viewings. It's one of the few times when watching a movie I found myself in awe of the costume design and admiring how much it added to the story and feel of the picture.

We have the cowardly Orphans (all in green shirts with "ORPHANS" stitched on the back and blue jeans), The Lizzies (an all female lesbian gang), The Punks (who all wear overalls and have a leader on roller skates), and most memorably The Furies (guys in pinstriped baseball uniforms and KISS-like face paint wielding baseball bats). The Furies have since become the iconic symbol of the film and their fight with The Warriors in Central Park recall Kurosawa's samarai films, except with baseball bats. Looking back, parents who had children in this era must be grateful the film was rated R because if not I'm convinced every little kid in America would probably be wearing face paint and wielding baseball bats.

Hill also employs the device of a Greek chorus that comments from the sidelines. It's a forgotten art, but can be very effective and entertaining if used properly. Here that Greek chorus is the great Lynne Thigpen (tv's Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego?) as a radio DJ who not only provides the film's soundtrack but also updates us on the location of our protagonists and their situation. Somewhat similar to Samuel L. Jackson's role in Do The Right Thing. She has a great, deep speaking voice and Hill shoots her in an almost unsettling extreme close-up to drive her delivery home. It's just one more example of Hill using his setting and characters to move the story forward without you ever consciously noticing.

The performances are adequate but it's almost irrelevant since this isn't an actor's movie at all. Everything is about spectacle. Wisely realizing big names may cause a distraction and take some authenticity away from the film, Hill cast unknowns. Beck is sufficient in the lead while Valkenburgh is a pleasant surprise mainly because she doesn't fit the profile of your typical leading lady, which in this case works in her favor. The best performances come from Kelly and Remar, who get to play the two most manic, over-the-top characters in a film that's just bursting with them.

Walter Hill, much to author Sol Yurik's disappointment, took major liberties with his novel to the point it could be considered a completely different story. The novel was actually loosely based on the Greek story Anabasis, which told of a Greek army that made it's way through enemy Persian territory to The Black Sea. This is alluded to visually (in comic book style) in the prologue to the special edition DVD release. Since The Warriors has become such a cult phenomenon it's ironic that Hill now finds himself struggling to preserve his own vision as they're planning a big budget remake he's said to be strongly against. Originally Tony Scott (Man on Fire, Déjà vu) was scheduled to direct, but rumors circulated that he dropped out unhappy with the direction the studio wanted to go.

Last I heard they were planning to cast real gang members, set it in Los Angeles instead of New York and discard many of the campy elements of the original. You'd think, inevitably, it would also be more violent. I'm not too sure this is a good idea. It's not that the film is an untouchable masterwork, but rather there isn't much more can possibly be wrung from this material. Plus, the story is now so identifiable to that time and place a modernized version couldn't possibly contain the nostalgiac enjoyment of the original.

If they really are going to do a remake though, for some reason I see The Rock filling Roger Hill's shoes as Cyrus and delivering that impassioned speech at the start of the film. He seems like the most logical choice to deliver what in essence is a wrestling promo written for a movie. I've heard some fans recommending Vanessa Ferlito (Grindhouse) for the role of Mercy, which is also an interesting casting choice that might work. The Warriors isn't a film for all tastes and it takes more than one viewing to fully appreciate what Walter Hill was trying to accomplish. Despite its reputation as a violent gang picture, it's really the threat of violence and pervading sense of danger accompanying it that makes this film feel special. It's a memorable experience, if you can dig it.

Cult Classic Corner: Black Christmas (Original vs. Remake)

**Spoiler Warning! Key plot details from the 1974 original and 2006 remake are revealed in this review**

"Midnight Movie." You've heard the term. There's even a DVD series named after it that you may have come across in your travels. The term rose to prominence in the 1970's (with its roots actually dating way before) to describe low budget cult films that were screened theatrically in major cities late at night. Now the term is being thrown around regularly to describe any campy low budget horror movie that may air late at night on one of your cable channels. You know the ones that you discover when you can't sleep and you're flipping through the channels at midnight. Most of them are bad. Sometimes really bad. But the joy in watching them comes from the fact that they can often be so bad, they're considered good.

The Canadian horror classic Black Christmas flew under the radar upon its release in 1974 but over the years has picked up a huge cult following and has enjoyed many midnight screenings, especially on Christmas Eve. If it is to be considered a midnight movie, it's definitely not a bad one. In fact, time has revealed it to not only be a great film in every sense of the word, but a revolutionary one as far as suspense and horror.

Pre-dating John Carpenter's Halloween by nearly four years, it introduced us to what is now commonly used horror techniques such as "the caller is inside the house," "the final girl," and the frightening camera angle from the killer's perspective. The director, the late, great Bob Clark (A Christmas Story, Porky's) is responsible for all of this, but rarely got the credit. So when over thirty years later the movie is taking its rightful place among the greats and finally starting to get the respect it deserves, why remake it? Furthermore, why all this talk about midnight movies? I'll tell you why. Bob Clark's original Black Christmas may remain the ultimate midnight movie, but Glen Morgan's 2006 remake of it could be considered one as well.

You see I had it all planned out. I would watch the original followed by the remake and compare them in my latest cult classic corner column. It would turn into another one of those rants about how these money hungry studio executives should leave these original masterpieces alone and hire people to, you know, actually come up with some new ideas. I would pit the remake head on against the original to further my venomous point that these worthless remakes only prove how far horror filmmaking has devolved over the past few decades. But the producer/director team of James Wong and Morgan (the guys behind the Final Destination films) decided to throw a hatchet in my plans.

They took the basic idea of Black Christmas and decided to make a completely different movie that bears absolutely no resemblance to the original other than its title. You can't compare them because they're not on the same page. They're not even reading the same book. Oh, and I'm forgetting the most important detail about this remake. It's awful. Gloriously awful in the best way possible. To call it bad would be like calling ice cream cold. Of course it's bad. It's supposed to be. Is it scary? No way. But it sure as hell is funny and entertaining. In its own twisted way the remake of Black Christmas works, as a goofy over the top tribute to B-movie slashers. If you can put your remake bias and the original's reputation aside you're in for a wild ride. If the 1974 original is an exercise in pure terror, then the 2006 remake is an exercise in pure camp.

The 1974 original tells a story that takes place over the two days before Christmas of young college women who must contend with a deranged killer lurking in their sorority house, whose original and terrifying method of execution is asphyxiation by way of a plastic bag. The movie became infamous for the killer's obscene, deranged phone calls, which were revealed to be coming from inside the house. As the film progresses the phone calls themselves (and there are a lot of them) progress from being just merely vulgar to genuinely terrifying. Of course the call from inside the house is now commonplace and has been ripped off in many films (namely When a Stranger Calls), but at the time this was a shocking revelation and a first for any film of that genre. Now it seems almost funny to see just how difficult a time the police had back then tracing the phone calls, but it does create a great deal of suspense for the film.

The movie also makes great use of score, lighting, and an almost total lack of gore to add to the suspense and terror. The film actually contains some big stars (at least for that time) in the important roles. Olivia Hussey (Romeo and Juliet) stars as the heroine Jessie, while Margot Kidder (who would go onto fame as Lois Lane in Superman) gives a very memorable turn as the loud, vulgar obnoxious Barbara. A creepy Keir Dullea (a long way from 2001: A Space Odyssey) co-stars as Peter, Jessie's loose cannon boyfriend and the main suspect in the murders. Horror vet John Saxon rounds out the cast as the surprisingly smart police Lieutenant investigating the case.

Clark does an excellent job establishing all the sorority girls' personalities and actually gives us a lot of time to get to know them before they're picked off one by one. This is a forgotten art, only recently resurrected to full effect in Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof. The film is methodically paced and the murders are widely spread out throughout the film with long stretches where you wonder if there's even going to be another one. That's not to say the film is at all boring because it's not and actually has a clever sense of humor as well. Subplots involving the loony house mother Mrs. Mac (memorably portrayed by Marian Waldman) hiding liquor throughout the house and the comic interplay between the cops investigating the case all work really well and add a grounded reality to the film, making the killings seem that much more horrifying when they do come.

This was also one of, if not the very first horror film to employ an ambiguous ending, where we're not given a clear-cut resolution to the story or any closure. Even today this is still considered a risky proposition that creates much "love it" or "hate it" debate whenever filmmakers use it. The film's final shot, which pans back to reveal an image that would adorn the promotional posters for the film is now legendary. The reason the film is considered such a classic is largely because of Clark's clever "less is more" approach to leaving nearly everything up to the audience's imagination, including the killer's identity and motives. There's hardly any blood or gore to speak of as he wisely surmised this would make the film scarier. Unfortunately this technique is all but forgotten today and Clark's film has become not only a glaring example of what he did right, but what modern horror movies do all wrong.

The only recent horror film I can recall really using this "less is more" method is last year's The Descent. Otherwise, it's become all but extinct in Hollywood filmmaking and something hardcore horror fans would love to see return. Today, more casual filmgoers and studio executives have developed an obsession with gore and as long as these movies continue to rake in the dough we're not likely to see Clark's method make a big comeback any time soon. It would be nice if we found some kind of middle ground in satisfying our appetite for gore and still telling a tight, suspenseful story. Horror filmmakers such as Eli Roth (Hostel) and Darren Lynn Bausman (The Saw films) seem to be heading in that direction, which should give us some hope. Don't think for a second we would have seen Roth's Thanksgiving trailer in Grindhouse if it hadn't been for Bob Clark. Clark, along with Texas Chain Saw Massacre director Tobe Hooper, could very well be considered the founding fathers of the slasher genre, but I think Clark's film is superior.

If you're looking to pick up this film on DVD, the special edition that was released in late 2005 has unfortunately removed the director and actor commentaries from previous releases due to licensing issues and replaced them with a couple of sit down interviews. They're entertaining (especially Margot Kidder's), but it would have been nice to have the commentaries, since a film as revolutionary as this really begs for a play-by-play account. Also the DVD transfer is quite bad. I know the film didn't look great to begin with (which only adds to its appeal), but it seems like they put no effort into restoring the print. They claim the film looks better than ever, but that's a stretch. At times I felt like I was watching a VHS tape. It seems bizarre they wouldn't give this classic the royal DVD treatment it truly deserves. Still, from what I've heard this will likely be the definitive DVD release of this for a while, so it's definitely a must own for not just fans of horror, but fans of classic films in general.

It's understandable that Black Christmas' loyal cult fan base would have big problems with a modern day remake and Glen Morgan finds himself in a no-win situation. Veer too far from the original and you could have a disaster. Copy it and it's pointless. Whereas the 1974 version strongly focused on letting us know the characters and each had identifiable personalities these girls, while definitely distinguishable, aren't as fully developed. But if you watch carefully Morgan does make an effort early on, albeit a small one, to get you to know these girls. Unlike the original though, this not meant to be a character driven film, so it's excusable.

While the original had a few big names, this version is made up of young, up and coming actresses Michelle Trachtenberg, Lacey Shabert, Katie Cassidy, Crystal Lowe and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. One of the smart things Morgan does with the casting is pick girls who are all at the same fame level so it becomes almost impossible to guess which order they'll be killed off in. In fact, I can guarantee you won't be able to guess which characters end up being the final two. Morgan also adds an extra character, (played by his real life wife Kristen Cloke), who comes to the house to visit her younger half-sister, but soon finds herself in as much danger as the girls. There was actually a vaguely similar parental figure in the original, but this film really exploits it and Cloke gives a hilariously bitchy, over-the-top performance.

The film actually starts off somewhat similar to the original in that there's a death right off the bat, but from there it goes in a completely different direction. Since the phone calls coming from inside the house is no longer a shocking revelation, Morgan wisely doesn't treat it as one, but instead just decides to have some fun. While the original film dished out its deaths slowly over the course of an hour and a half, here nearly everyone goes at once. Also, instead of the events happening over the course of two days, everything occurs in one night. This is a change that ends up being for the better, as this was always something that bothered me about the original. I wondered what the killer could possibly be doing in the house during the day when he waited to kill everybody at night. Just hanging out? It just made no sense and it's a welcome change. In fact, it may be the original's only true flaw.

The phone calls in the original film consisted of tortured male groans of "Agnes, it's me, Billy" and "I'm going to kill you." Pretty creepy stuff and it's still here in the remake (in smaller doses), but Morgan also makes a very controversial decision. He replaces the majority of them with actual flashbacks and gives us a backstory for the Billy and Agnes characters. It's fair to say this decision has given loyal devotees of the original a heart attack and is the primary criticism lodged at the film.

Does actually showing Billy and Agnes rob the film of suspense and terror? Absolutely. Furthermore, does just having an extra killer also rob the film of suspense and terror? Probably. I can't say I'm thrilled with the decision, but we already had a movie that left everything a mystery, so why repeat it? Also this is not supposed to be a terrifying film like the original is and these flashbacks (which involve child abuse, incest, and jaundice!) are so ridiculous and the actors seem to have such a good time with them that they're actually memorable and entertaining.

And how about that Agnes character? She's played hilariously and in drag by (I'm not joking here) one of the movie's camera assistants. Better yet, the DVD's special features actually show this guy dressed in drag helping to film the movie and then seconds later stepping in front of the camera to asphyxiate these girls with plastic bags, deep voice and all. I'm sorry, but that's funny. Really funny. Every time she (or should I say he?) appears onscreen (and in Morgan's defense it isn't much) I nearly fell out of my seat laughing.

Complaining about the lack of terror in this film is like whining about the lack of laughs in Schindler's List. It's important to judge this for what it is, not what it isn't. I didn't hear people leaving Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror mumbling to themselves that it wasn't scary enough. However like the original, this could be a Grindhouse feature (or a spoof of one), if not for one problem: it looks too good. It may actually be one of the best looking bad movies I've ever seen. The production design is top notch and the cinematography is breathtaking.

Some films have a Christmas setting but it never actually feels like Christmas. Here they exploit the holiday visually to the max, maybe better than any other Christmas themed movie and much more so than the original. The house is completely decked out with colorful lights, the Christmas music is blasting and there's a real effort to make you believe this really is Christmas Eve. It adds a lot to the picture. You'll also be surprised how much the new house resembles the 1974 version as well as the visual details Morgan subtly throws in that pays respect to the original. His homage can also be seen in the casting as Andrea Martin (who played Phyllis in the 1974 version) is now the house mother in the remake and gives a fun little performance. Everyone in this movie looks like they're having fun.

Also marvel at Oliver Hudson's unintentionally(?) hilarious re-imagining of the Keir Dullea character as he pops into the picture at various points to call the girls "bitches" and leave. Morgan wisely doesn't even attempt to present this guy as any kind of suspect, and the abortion sub-plot from the original film (which would seem really out of place here) is replaced with an appropriately silly one involving cyber-porn.

Lately I've been complaining about the high amount of worthless special features and supplemental material on DVD releases, but here's a rare situation where the opposite is true. Accompanying the 2006 version of Black Christmas is a short making of doc entitled, What Have You Done?: The Remaking of Black Christmas and it actually increases your appreciation of what Morgan was going for with this film. Besides that hilarious revelation about the camera assistant, we find out that Morgan is actually a huge fan of the original and made it a point not to copy anything from it out of respect.

In a bittersweet moment, Bob Clark (who with his 21 year-old son just tragically passed away a couple of months ago in a car accident) actually appears on set and gives the remake his seal of approval. If he doesn't have a problem with this, how can I? Nothing Morgan does in any way steps on the toes of the original film, a horror masterpiece that will always be there for us to appreciate and enjoy. It's just a shame we won't have the opportunity to see Clark make another film because he was an incredible talent, but I am glad he got to see a remake of his film that's actually somewhat good and stands as an entertaining tribute.

You also have to give Glen Morgan credit for making this movie R rated and going all the way with its blood and gore. He easily could have wussed out and gone for a PG-13. He laments on the DVD that if the movie doesn't make any money he may never be able to direct another film again. Of course we all know now the film flopped, but interestingly, like the original, it's picking up speed on DVD. I really hope he does get to direct another film because after Willard, Final Destination 3 (which I loved) and this, I'm convinced Morgan has more than just a good bad movie in him. The remake makes a pact at the beginning about what it's going to be and keeps it right until the final credits. It's fun, mindless slasher movie and for that it works. Many could point to this remake as an example of how far horror movies have fallen in the past thirty years and I would agree with them. My only defense is that I had a great time. Is that wrong?

I recently slammed Dave Meyers' remake of The Hitcher, but that shamelessly attempted to recreate the original film. This movie's smarter than that. 1974's Black Christmas is arguably one of the most groundbreaking horror movies of all time and will always be there for us to enjoy and nothing this remake did is going to change that. It goes without saying the original is the superior film by a landslide, but give the 2006 version credit for at least making that point irrelevant. If you want good scare, watch the original. If you want to laugh your ass off, see the remake. Either way, you'll be entertained.

1974 Original: **** (out of ****)
2006 Remake: *** (out of ****)

Cult Classic Corner: Heavyweights

Director: Steven Brill Starring: Aaron Schwartz, Tom McGowen, Ben Stiller, Keenan Thompson, Tom Hodges, Leah Lail, Jerry Stiller, Anne Meara, Jeffrey Tambor
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: PG
Release Date: 1995

***1/2 (out of ****)

As a kid I never really liked camp. To me it was like summer school. Really, if you think about it it's essentially the same thing except you're wearing shorts. I always thought camp was actually worse because at least school didn't pretend to be fun. Maybe the problem was that I never went to a sleep away camp or never went to camp with anyone other than who I went to school with. Or that I had terrible counselors. Or that I was just a miserable kid who just couldn't have fun anywhere. Maybe it's because I wasn't fat. If I was I'm sure I would have had a great time at camp if it meant I got to attend one that was anything like "Camp Hope" in the 1995 Disney cult comedy classic Heavyweights. I doubt a camp this fun could ever exist anywhere but in the movies but for an hour and a half it's fun imagining that it does.

Released in 1995 and directed by Steven Brill this family film was billed as being from "the creator of The Mighty Ducks." Needless to say that tagline didn't exactly send moviegoers rushing to the multiplex. Critics weren't any kinder and the film quickly fell off the radar. Shame on them. In the 12 years since its release the movie slowly started to find new life on video and DVD and picked up a cult audience that could recite all the lines of the film by heart. This is what I love most about cult films. If for some reason a real quality film fails to make any money, is bashed by just about every critic and completely falls through the cracks, the fans are right there to save it. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not, the filmmakers made a family comedy that everyone of all different ages can enjoy and has held up years later upon repeated viewings. How many other "family films" can claim that? Watching it now you can see how it's subversive, dry humor created a template for future comedies like Old School and even more directly Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. I can't imagine anyone seeing this and not at least enjoying It for what it is. I couldn't wait until it was over so I could watch it again.

Heavyweights tells the story of young Gerry Gardner ( a really likable Aaron Schwartz) who when school is let out for the summer is ordered by his parents to attend a boys weight loss camp known as "Camp Hope." I should break here and let you know that Gerry's dad is played by Jeffrey Tambor, who looks EXACTLY like Dr. Phil McGraw in this movie. Even more so than usual. A camp representative (Tim Blake Nelson in a small role) comes to the house and shows the family an uplifting video featuring the camp's founders, the Bushkins (played by Ben Stiller's parents Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara) and overweight counselor Pat (Tom McGowen) which actually makes the camp look fun and somewhat convinces Gerry things may not be as bad as they seem. When he arrives there they're actually not, as Gerry becomes friends with Roy (Keenan Thompson) and the kids come up with funny, clever ways to sneak junk food into the camp. Everything's about to change with the arrival of Tony Perkus (Ben Stiller), a compulsive, insane fitness guru who just bought the camp from the Bushkins and is determined to turn his new exercise regime for "Camp Hope" into the number one weight loss infomercial in the country.

The kids are given ridiculous "Perkus Power" shirts, have their go-carts destroyed, are forced to go on 20 mile hikes, subjected to weigh-ins, humiliated in front of girls at a camp dance and are basically emotionally and physically tortured by the most mentally unstable person you'll ever see at a summer camp. He also brings in an evil new counselor, Lars (Tom Hodges) who I can't even do justice describing here. The hysterical performance of Hodges is reason enough alone to see this movie, but believe me there are plenty others. The real hero of the film ends up being McGowen's Pat, the 18-year veteran counselor who must learn to stand up for himself, the kids and overcome his fear of talking to the pretty camp nurse, Julie (Leah Lail).

What's so special about the film is how it manages to accomplish it's goal of being a heart warming and uplifting picture for kids, while at the same time sliding in some really clever humor for teens and adults, all the while maintaining it's clean PG rating. That's impressive. Just as impressive is that the movie never takes itself or its message too seriously, yet never makes fun of the kids or being fat. I was surprised how well written the picture was, but shouldn't have been when I saw one of the names on the credits. The movie was co-written by Judd Apatow, the comic mastermind behind the 40- Year-Old Virgin as well as television's short-lived but brilliant Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared.

If they really were trying to make a Disney family comedy somebody forgot to send Ben Stiller the memo. There were many times during this when I thought there was no way this guy could have been following the script and the movie's all the better for it. It seemed like the entire performance was improvised. It's like he walked in from the set of another film and decided to just do his own thing. As Tony Perkis, clad in a spandex body suit, his head insanely disproportionate to the rest of his body, he gives the funniest, most darkly comic performance of his career. The finale of the film is like a Stiller free for all (involving back flips and broken glass) the likes of which you've never seen before. Now that he's always saddled with playing wimps or losers we forget how effective and funny he can really be in a villainous role. He makes this movie I'll go out on a limb here and say his performance the primary reason the movie has found new life on DVD.

It's been 12 long years, but the legacy of Heavyweights lives on. While none of the actors in the film (aside from Stiller) are huge names some went on to enjoy moderate success. Keenan Thompson went on to star in Good Burger and became a regular on Saturday Night Live. Tom McGowen you'll recognize as one of those character actors who seems to have been in just about every show on television (Frasier and Curb Your Enthusiasm to name a couple). Tim Blake Nelson went on to direct (2001's O) and star (2000's O' Brother Where Art Thou?) in feature films . There's even a blink and you'll miss him cameo from Peter Berg as the camp cook. The funniest (or maybe creepiest considering this is a Disney film) piece of information I found out while surfing the internet movie database was that the young girl that made the rotund campers' jaws drop at the dance went on to become a Playboy model.

Stiller has often stated his appreciation for the Perkis character and even modeled his performance as White Goodman in Dodgeball after it. He's said in interviews that he's interested in reprising the role for a sequel and I really hope that comes to fruition. Reuniting the original cast is easy and it shouldn't be too difficult for Disney to get behind it after all the success Stiller and Apatow have enjoyed in the years since the film's release. Heavyweights is one of those rare family films that really is for the entire family and its influence can still be felt in today's comedy landscape. Its cult classic status is well deserved.