Date Night Friday: Edward Scissorhands

Upon doing research for Pumpkinhead, I discovered that the director created the special effects for a movie very close to my heart. It turns out that, when he isn't creating hillbilly monster mashes, Mr. Winston can give Johnny Depp some dangerous digits. From the realm of happy, semi-contrived accidents, today's romantic movie is the first feature length film of media golden boy, Tim Burton, and the film catalyst for the future Jack Sparrow. This is Edward Scissorhands, or "Leave it to Beaver meets Frankenstein." 

Released in 1990, Scissorhands begins on a cold Christmas Eve. A grandmother tells her granddaughter the true tale behind the Gothic mansion on the hill that none one goes near. It belonged to an old inventor (Vincent Price) who, in his loneliness, decided to create a human man for companionship (insert your own Rocky Horror joke here.) The inventor dies before he can finish his invention, leaving an Unfinished Edward (Johnny Depp) to wallow in the mansion's attic…until Avon comes calling. 

In a surprising twist, Peg Boggs, the local Avon spokeswoman (Diane West) discovers Edward in the attic and decides to take him back to her home in the suburbs, who's style closest resembles the 60's. The stereotypical housewife neighbors take Edward under their pink, acrylic wings, and he seems to thrive under their expectations. But a series of unfortunate events starts a slow spiral downward, and a curious fascination quickly becomes childish repulsion, and a monster-movie style mob of hair-curlers and bathrobes. 

This duel style of curiosity/revulsion comes from Burton's own teenage years. In an interview for Hollywood Backstories, Burton mentions how Edward came out of his own thoughts while growing up in the suburbs of Burbank, California. He mentions being both enthralled by this lifestyle, but also disturbed by the cookie-cutter nature of it all. This carries over into the film, making the first half feel like we just discovered Narnia, while the latter half becomes oppressive and very bleak. In a way, it feels like a transition from child to adult, where all things that felt new and exciting quickly become paper thin. 
 

This message of childish wonder and veneer is as subtle as a bright neon sign in a pitch-black room. This is par for the course, as nothing in this movie knows the meaning of the word subtle. All the people in the town, including the Boggs, are caricatures you could recognize in your sleep. Neighbor Joyce is the horny housewife who jumps the repairman's bones, Esmerelda is the religious nut, and every husband in this entire neighborhood is more clueless than Alicia Silvertsone's character, Cher. If you want deep storytelling and understated plot, turn back now. I won't blame you. 

Lack of depth aside, this movie's charm comes squarely from our titular character, Edward. Co-writer Caroline Thompson said that she designed Edward's character off a dog she once had, and Depp took that direction to heart. Edward is overjoyed when happy, devastated when sad, and loyal to a fault when it comes to the Boggs. Edward reads less like a man and more like a golden retriever with scissor nails. Some, like me, will find this adorable and sympathetic. Some, however, will not be faulted for finding it annoying. 
 

Though my sympathy can only stretch so far. The movie is also a comedy, and a genuinely funny one, but has one problem: it's all the same joke. The entirety of the levity in this movie is based on Edward vs. Modern appliances: Edward vs. Silverwear and peas, FIGHT! This is their funny concept, and while they have about a hundred different ways to express it, it amounts to the same thing. I have a limited amount of laughter for someone who's blundering around modern day things, and I used it up very quickly here. 

There is one last note to touch on with this one, that being the romantic subplot.During his stay with the Boggs, Edward falls in love with Peg's youngest, Kim. Kim, played by Depp's then girlfriend Winona Ryder, is already dating the neighborhood Alpha-Jock (Anthony Michael Hall), who quickly turns into a villain by the end of the film. I have little issues with the romance itself, as these two of course have chemistry to exploit, but I do have issue with Hall's character. Alpha Jock's turn to the dark side baffled me as much as Hans's did in Frozen, mostly in the sudden nature of it. Both were wrong, and capable of making poor decisions, but both suddenly turned evil to provide a new hate target at the end of the film. To be clear, this is not a complaint, but it is a question: in a film like this, is an antagonist really necessary? 
 

Just food for thought. 

With running gags, plastic exteriors, and inner Gothic core, what exactly is Edward Scissorhands? It's a dark romantic fantasy that plays with the idea of a fish out of water. It's not a preachy diatribe about the exclusionary nature of the suburbs, but nor is it a surprising tale of acceptance and love. It is the personal story of someone who wanted to be accepted, and the movie that helped color my high school years. The movie's an acquired taste, and a great introduction to Tim Burton as a director and a writer. If you can handle the tragic tones at the end, consider this a rent.

Discussing Trailers: Crimson Peak

What do you get when you cross one of horror's most creative writers, an actress who wasn't so fantastic in her last role, and the darling of the indie-movie-scene across the pond? Short answer, Crimson Peak, long answer, a film I haven't felt this much excitement for since the Harry Potter Franchise.

Crimson Peak looks to be the latest horror-thriller from aclaimed director, Guillermo del Toro. Since he's the one who put together Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, and, most recently, Pacific Rim, I can wager a guess that this movie will be visusally awesome, and disturbing. Very disturbing.

Set in Cumbria, England, late 19th century, young author Edith Cushing (played by Mia Wasikowska) has been dealing with ghosts most of her life. A combined synposis read of Wikipedia and IMDB says that things go dark when Edith married Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) and discovers that her new house is harboring dark, forboding secrets beneath it and in the walls. 

So, what do I think of the trailer?

My first thoughts are that we started the scary train far too early. The first thing we see is a house that looks reminicient of Beetlejuice, surrounded by dark snow and traces of blood. The next scene is Mr. Sharpe marrying Edith, spoiling any and all surprise that something a'int right here.  Just imagine the feelings of seeing this happy couple tie the knot, than followed by the slow reveal of The Big Bad Dark Secret. Afterall, I'm assuming that's the road the movie wants to take, right?

My second thoughts are on the ususal features of the Gothic Novel. We have the creepy house with a dark secret (a la Fall of the House of Usher)we have the doomed Lady In White (think Elizabeth from Frankenstien) and we have the supernatural element, which feels like the cherry on the sundae at this point.  This feels like Tim Burton on some serious steriods, at least before he started produce more "weird' and less "gothy."

But let's talk about the big reason a chunk of my fellow female population may see this one: Mr. Hiddleston. While he's known these days more for playing the trickster prince Loki from Thor and The Avengers, this isn't the first time he's been in something this dark. He played a Vampire in Only Lovers Left Alive in 2013, a horror romance that got some raving positive reviews. Considering that one also had Wasikowska in the lead, it promises two things: one, Tom can do scary, two, these two should have some believable chemistry.

Also it looks like he's playing the villain again. It will never cease to amuse me that an actor with a reputation for being one of the nicest people alive keeps portraying scary people.

So that's all we can gleam until the film comes out. It's due in theaters October 12th, and I give my encouragement to everyone to check it out. Everyone should be brave enough to see at least one scary film this October, and this is the one it should be.

Cult Classic Thursday: Pumpkinhead

For me, Halloween has a few meanings: hilarious novelty items, gummy candies, costume fails, and classic horror movies. In this, you don’t get much more classic than a monster movie, and today’s specimen is one of the cult favorites in that category. Directed in 1988, Pumpkinhead is the story of messing with the wrong country bumpkin, and it’s somehow much better than a movie called “Pumpkinhead” has the right to be.

Here in the unspecified backcountry of Nowhere, USA, there’s a legend about a creature called Pumpkinhead. This demon of the pumpkin patch can be summoned in the name of vengeance, to tear apart whoever did you wrong. A young Ed Harley sees a strange creature attack an accused murderer right after the credits, killing any doubt that Pumpkinhead was real, and setting the tone for the rest of the movie. When a fully grown Mr. Harley (Lance Henriksen) discovers his boy killed by a reckless group of “city-folk,” we know it’s only a matter of time before Pumpkinhead makes another appearance. But, this time, we get to see the whole process, and shudder over this “final price” Mr. Harley has to pay. Half of it will be obvious, the other half might surprise you.

Here we have the bare bones of any given monster film: scary creature, reason scary creature exists, and reckless youth/monster fodder. There’s no real excess pieces in this movie, making the story very tight and very face-paced. This effect works for movies like this because most monster movie fans tend to get bored when the writer tries to give the backstory on the deadmeat walking around. Basically, if you know that these characters are just here to get killed, why should I care that little Amanda wants to be an astronaut and has been training to do so since she was a little girl? Now this doens't mean that I don't want anything on them (killing mannequins is no fun) but it hardly calls for the enough information to fill an extended LOTR movie.

The only problem that arises from this is that some scenes will leave the audience hanging, looking like they were cut too early. Mr. Harley is telling his son a story, one that actually sounded pretty good. He's right in the middle of it and BOOM, sudden teenage alpha-jerk making fun of the hillbillies. So, you think, "okay, whatever, we'll move on," as Head American Idiot asks Barley Here Girlfriend for a cigarette. Than, BOOM AGAIN, we're back to Mr. Harley. Now, before the choir pedantic kicks up, I realize the flipside to this would be Pirates of the Carribian Three, as in  three hours on endless tripe, but you do need time to process moments in movies. I know we need to quickly get to the rum-cake waiting for us but that doesn't mean the waiter can yank my appetizer away when he feels like it.

The metaphor I clumsily tried to get to is that pacing is important in movies like this, especially for this odd twist on the formula. You see, the story here is less about the monster and more about Henriksen’s character. Most monster movies put the audience in the shoes of the victims: Ah, oh no, scary monster, why it do what it do, where it come from, what do we do, that kind of thing? You, hopefully, identify with the victims and walk with them on this horrible journey of blood, guts, and occasional self-discovery.

Pumpkinhead, on the other hand, takes the Halloween approach and puts the viewer squarely with Mr. Harley from Pumpkinhead’s conception down to his defeat. In Halloween, we know Myers is an escaped mental patient who likes murdering young girls, and it turns into a game of "Where's Mikey?" In that same vein, we know who Mr. Harley is, we know why he summoned Pumpkinhead, and that he's sicked him on a stupid, defenseless pack of city-kids. This can create a great dynamic with the audiance scrutuinizing every shadow twice over, wondering when the monster will strike first/next.

Or, at least it would if this happened early in the movie. Since it happens about midway, Pumpky has to start the murder train as soon as possible. At least the stops he has are creative and unique for each kid.

Speaking of the kids, wow, I know next to nothing about any of them. I know that Joel (John D'Aquino) is a jerk that's been on probation, and no one knows why they hang out with him; I know that Tracy (Cynthia Bain) is the only one with a spine between the girls and likes photography; I know Kim is the religious one, and nothing else. The other three (Steve, Chris, Kim) might as well be wallpaper for how little I know about them, and how little they contribute to anything. This entire group is less about characters and more about set pieces to spur on Mr. Harley's character development.

Did you get that? The victims are the catalyst to the killer's growth. That is simultaneously weird and fascinating.

Given that the movie has such an interesting angle, it’s a shame that it only knows how to do three types of lighting: idyllic country day, harsh hell-red night, and flashing blue death (we're gonna take one of the most calming colors on the spectrum as our dead-light YAY!) Most of these are done in smash cuts, meaning back to back for those who don’t like fancy film-terms, and it gets distracting real quick.

The sound mixing is also an issue. My biggest pet-peeve in a film is mumbling, because I never see it mixed right. It's always too low, gets drowned out by the music, or just makes everything incomprehensible. If I have to blast the background music because I can’t hear the protagonist, you have made a mistake.

I’m only sore about the light and sound choices because I adore the practical effects this film has. This movie is the directorial debut of special effects artist Stan Winston, the man you can all thank for Arnold's Terminator, the Alien chest-bursters, and even Edward's Scissorhands. The special effects are golden (er, golden red) here with well-done gore and a surprisingly creepy costume for Pumpkinhead himself. Does he look anything like an actual pumpkin? Not at all, but he will be lurking from that dark corner of your dreams, the one that likes to throw out random nightmares when you're sleeping too deeply. You can accuse this movie of a few things, but "cheap" is not one of them.

So what does this mish-mash of points come to in conclusion? It says that Pumpkinhead isn't perfect, but it’s very easy to enjoy. It’s a fun, spooky, well-directed romp through Hillbilly Hell that I make sure to see at least once every October. If you're an admirer of monster movies, this needs to be added to your shelf (or you might already have it; I wouldn’t be surprised.) For those who are looking to dip their toe in the genre, this movie is worth renting. There’s no deep story telling here, but there’s no need for there to be.

What do you think of special effects men taking the chair? Comment and discuss below.