Deep Red

Year: 1975
Director: Dario Argento
Writer: Dario Argento, Bernadino Zapponi
Genre: Horror: Thriller

First off, Dario Argento is one of my favorite horror directors out there. It was through his films that I sort of discovered my taste for more "modern" horror as opposed to classic Hitchcock drama. I always felt like I had already watched this movie but apparently not because it seemed a wholly new experience.

The story starts off with a psychic who is at an event and suddenly becomes overcome with the dreadful thoughts and feelings of a murderer in the crowd. Shortly after her premonition, she is murdered. From there a man who caught a glimpse of the killer is determined to find him. With an intrepid journalist beside him the two attempt to uncover what's going on.

The story isn't the most creative out there but the characters are likable enough and it's easy to get invested. The murder scenes are done quite well and excellently tense. There is not a huge focus on gore but most injuries are shown straight on with the camera, which might not be the best idea with 70s era special effects. Regardless, it works very well and I liked it. I especially have always enjoyed what looks like bright red paint they use for blood. It's obviously fake but something about it makes everything seem a bit more artistic somehow.

It's a nice little film. What I find odd is just how much content was cut for the US release (which I watched). The film is nearly 130 minutes in original form but clocks in a little under 100 for the US theatrical release. What exactly was lost? I'm not sure. However, near the end the film feels slightly schizophrenic so I'm assuming that's where content was lost. Aside from that though this is actually one of the more linear stories that has come from Argento.

Dog Day Afternoon

Year: 1975
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writer: Frank Pierson
Genre: Crime

I've had Dog Day Afternoon on my list of things to watch for a while now. Owning a copy of the VHS I just kept staring it at it and thinking it might be fun. One fine evening of browsing Netflix and I came to realize the film is available for streaming! So, I sat down and watched the whole two hour feature.

This is a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. Typical crime drama stories are not my thing but this isn't one of those stories. For one, the main character may be a bank robber but he's exceedingly entertaining. Played by Al Pacino, I wasn't expecting such a lovable guy. He robs a bank with a friend of his and all the bank staff are stuck in there with him. There's the manager, a security guard, and a flock of tellers.

The police catch on to the scheme rather quickly and surround the bank. However, due to the hostages, the situation gets drawn out for a long time. During that time frame the hostages mostly lose their fear of the robbers and discuss and pal around with them. It's really unexpected and makes things a lot of fun. It's also fun when the ever-growing crowd of spectators begin to take the robber's side and see him as sticking it to the man.

One of the most interesting things in the film to me was why the Pacino character wanted the money. I won't spoil it because the reasons don't come to light until later, but it's really quite unexpected (especially for the time period the film was produced). I suppose the reason the story is so outlandish is because it is based on a true story. And you know how that goes... true life is stranger than fiction and whatnot. I'd really suggest checking this film out if you've ever got a lot of time to spare and want to see one of Al Pacino's first big works.

Deadly Friend

Year: 1986
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Diana Henstell, Bruce Joel Rubin
Genre: Horror: Sci-fi

Deadly Friend is definitely a child of the 80s. That's the very first thing I thought as the movie started off with a boy and a large, friendly-looking robot buddy. The movie may verge on sci-fi for some important plot points, but  there's still a horror movie at the base of it. It feels more like a young teen horror flick than anything else, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth a watch. If for nothing else, it's worth watching to see a woman get her face smashed clean to bits after getting hit with a basketball.

Basically, the story revolves around a mother and son family who have moved into a new town. The teen is a genius and makes a robot that is able to learn and act of its own accord. Nothing could ever go wrong with that! Anyway, he makes friends with the neighbor girl. Boy likes girl, girl dies, boy puts robot brain into girl, girl comes back to life, girl-with-robot-brain goes on a killing spree... Same old, same old.

The theme of not being able to let someone go reminds me of the movie I watched earlier, Make-Out with Violence. It's handled differently obviously since she's not a zombie but a robot-brained girl. Either way, I found it fun. The sci-fi aspect doesn't make that much sense but if you just go with it you can enjoy the film. The ending in particular makes absolutely no sense. I think that Wes was forced to shove in an "exciting!" ending by others though, kind of like how he had to change the ending for the first Elm Street flick to satisfy others.

If you're watching the movie just because Wes Craven directed it you may be a little disappointed. A Nightmare on Elm Street this is not. For a movie that starts off with a cute babbling yellow robot though it's surprisingly enthralling.

Desperate Living

Year: 1977
Director: John Waters
Writer: John Waters
Genre: Comedy, Crime

This post was written for the Queer Film Blogathon over at Garbo Laughs!

When choosing to watch Desperate Living I had no idea what to expect. A John Waters film is always something out of the ordinary though hence my choosing it. I've seen a few of his works, but none have ever surpassed my first - Pink Flamingos. While this movie didn't pass it up in pure shock, it nearly did and in fact pushed the envelope a lot further.

The entire film is ridiculous. After a woman kills her husband with the aid of her maid (who smothers him to death by sitting on his face) the two race away from the crime scene. They run to the criminal town of Mortville where murderers, rapists, and more live together in apparent peace and harmony. It's a slum, but it's better than jail. Well, maybe not quite as there is a crazy queen who enforces inane rules upon the townsfolk for no good reason.

For the first part of the film it seems like the housewife and her maid would be the main characters, but as the story progresses they fade from the main view as others take the stage. It is a couple that replaces these two. The couple are Mole and Muffy. They've lived in Mortville for a long time and inadvertently become heroes as time passes. What's most interesting about these heroes is how unlikely they are and Mole in particular.

Muffy is an obvious sex kitten and yet only has eyes for her precious Mole. Mole, too, is only interested in Muffy and seems to take relatively good care of her. What's most interesting though is that early into the introduction of Mole's character, he plainly states "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body!". Normally, a trans character would be pushed into a supporting role not straight out into protagonist status, but here he is. Even in this case, typically his "trans" status wouldn't be played off of very much. In Desperate Living, it isn't focused upon but still sees some exposure during the film.

There's a part in the movie where Mole decides he needs to have a "sex change" to please Muffy. After getting new bottom organs, he returns home to surprise her. Muffy is horrified and comes to tell him she was so happy with his body before. But even now, she would continue to love every last bit of it just the same as before (although Mole cuts the new member off as he didn't actually desire it for himself to begin with). Muffy stitches him back up and the story continues. I find it so incredible that this would be in a film from the 70s without trying to be exploitative. Muffy and Mole's relationship is portrayed so honestly. Even though Mole isn't equipped exactly the way he expects to be, Muffy loves him no bit less. Even though the characters themselves are eccentric beyond belief, they still are portrayed very humanly in regards to their emotions.

What also interested me was how everyone else interacted with Mole. Apparently, most everyone he was friends with knew, but nobody cared a bit either way. Mole was a female-bodied he and it was readily acknowledged. The other characters treated him as male, but also never batted an eye even when discussing female things with him (ex: Mole having an abortion). Despite being criminals, the cast was pretty down to earth and open about his situation. His transgender status was never brought up in an insulting fashion where in many other instances it probably could have been.

Mole is a murder. Mole is grimy and skinny and loudmouthed. Mole's character is so many things that the focus is not his trans-ness. Even in more modern film, it seems rare where a trans character will be painted in a well-rounded fashion. If it was possible in the 70s then I'm sure it's possible now... I just need to find those "now" movies.

Dangerous Liaisons

Year: 1988
Director: Stephen Frears
Writer: Christopher Hampton, Choderlos de Laclos (novel)
Genre: Drama: Romance

Dangerous Liasions is an adaptation of a play, which is in turn an adaptation of a novel: Les Liasions Dangereueses. I've never read the book or seen the play but I'm pretty sure the film uses 100% of the sentences from it. The way each character talks is very elaborate and play-ish, although thankfully understandable.

There was another adaptation of the play/novel in the form of another film called Cruel Intentions. I did something I usually find unspeakable, which was to watch a more recent adaptation first. It came out in 1999. However, it was such a wholly different film (placed in the modern era) that these two films are wholly separate even if they have the same exact base.

While I very much enjoyed Cruel Intentions when I watched it after viewing Dangerous Liaisons I've com to find I prefer this version even more. Unlike the more recent adaptation, it feels much less like a Hollywood movie and like an ornate play. It's able to draw you in despite sometimes confounding ways of speech and that is quite the accomplishment. I'm not sure how a modern movie-going audience would take such a film if it came out tomorrow, but there is definitely an audience to like it.  


I really like this movie. The incestuous themes aren't as outwardly nasty as they are in Cruel Intentions, but that huge plot point is still very much alive here. It's played in a more Victorian fashion though, which makes it easier to distance oneself from it. Either way, it's a fine film. I'd love to watch it again and even side by side with other adaptations to see who really captures the spirit best. Finally, I'll need to read the book.