Rating: 18 Length: 1hr 50 Release: 2.3.1984 Dir: John Carpenter About: Arnie restores an old car and names her Christine, but he is unaware that she has an evil presence within her. When anyone tries to come between her owner and her, they are not spared.
Visually, the opening is awesome. The birth of Christine is something quite unexpected. While there’s no real explanation as to why its that car in particular, it still hooks you in.
Christine riding around on fire looks absolutely amazing. I also do really like that those who are singled out by Christine are those who ‘attack’ her and also have issues with Arnie; allowing you to question how involved Arnie actually is.
I really liked the hints to Dennis being gay. They were subtle and, had that thread been followed through, could have added a layer to the plot and given us a better insight into the character.
Harry Dean Stanton as the detective. I don’t know what it is about Stanton, but I really like having him appear in films. He has that ‘granddad’ stature, almost. The scene in which we’re introduced to him is quite possibly my favourite in the whole film. Not for the dialogue, or for him being involved, but for how the cars are in the frame.
Totally not the film’s fault, but the song ‘Bad to the Bone’ by George Thorogood and The Destroyers for me is synonymous with Al Bundy and Married … With Children. In fact, I’ve just gone to google the connection hoping to find a clip to illustrate my point and it promptly informed me that it’s considered almost as Al’s theme song. For those who aren’t familiar with Al Bundy or the tv show he inhabits; it’s a comedy show that ran for 11 seasons over 10 years. By having this association, it throws off the tone of the film for me, right from the get go.
Keeping with this song as the opening number, there is another clash. This time between the song and the era that is presented on the screen. The film opens in September 1957, however the song is from 1982. Yes, some songs are timeless. Bad to the Bone is not one of those. It’s a very 80s number, and for a film that is firmly set in 1978, it just doesn’t fit for me.
I don’t get the character of Arnie. I don’t like him and find him a bit of a dick, even before his involvement with Christine. His negative interactions with anyone other than Dennis means what is meant to be a massive personality shift just doesn’t translate to the viewer. While his fate is as it should be, I don’t like that we don’t see the final moments of his relationship with Christine. This is more frustrating to me, as I feel it is his relationship with his car that’s the core of the story.
It’s so not scary! In fact, at times, it feels ludicrous and boring. The only thing bringing it up to the 18 rating is the use of language which feels gratuitous at times. That’s from me who has spent the last three months trying to make HanCOCK happen.
Why is everybody so pissed about the car?! Dennis’ apprehension could have been explained by the feelings he has for Arnie. I certainly feel it was hinted at that Dennis may have been gay and attracted to his best friend. However, its almost abandoned half way through.
A great concept that just falls short of its potential. There’s not enough horror and its a rather flawed plot to really rate highly for me.
Rating: 15 Length: 1hr 43 Release: 13.1.1984 Director: David Cronenberg About: A man awakens from a coma to discover he has a psychic ability.
The story is strong, making sure that elements are cleverly dropped into the narrative and actually really pay off towards the end of the movie. For instance, Johnny’s psychic abilities are triggered by Sam, his clinic doctor. It seems its just there to provide a bond between the characters and someone who believes through experience rather than belief. However, it not only does it pay off in the final act, but it gives the viewer one of the most heavily debated ethical conundrums, but Sam gives one of the best answers to the question I’ve ever heard.
While episodic in its delivery, it doesn’t feel disjointed. Again, this is to do with clever plotting and delivery. The introduction of senator candidate Stillson reminds me so much of how Prime Minster Saxon was developed in Doctor Who. At one point in the film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the focus of the whole film was going to be on Johnny assisting the detectives in town, but when that’s resolved you don’t feel like the rug has been pulled.
Speaking of Stillson, its rather chilling how much like President Orange-face he is. It’s also a little unsettling to know that Martin Sheen goes on to play a president so well received on tv that people still call for him to be real. Yes, I know he’s an actor, but its not lost on me that all politicians are not themselves either.
A weird thing to like, but its a really green film on the most part. Yes, I feel like it means something. No, I don’t know what it is. I suspect it’s to do with Johnny’s ability, but it draws me in rather than frustrates me.
Christopher Walken as Johnny. Bloody hell, I’m invested and he’s a hero. A blessed or cursed one, I’m not sure I’ve decided on that yet. It’s a testament to Walken as an actor that I went into this thinking he was going to be a bad guy and be completely creeped out for him to win me over.
There’s so much else that I loved about this film; the themes, the questions raised and that science versus mysticism that automatically comes with this sort of story.
The only part I found a little disjointed was the parent’s watching the televised interview and what happens to the mother. It’s slightly unclear (I’m nitpicking) and I’m not sure if that’s because I was already preparing for a flash from Johnny or if it just lacked the physical words.
Stephen King can’t write women for shit! Beverly Marsh has a gang bang with all of the Loser’s Club (albeit both the tv movie and the modern remake have the sense to leave it out), Donna bangs her husband’s tennis partner and now we’ve got Sarah who during Johnny’s five-year snooze gets married and has a baby. Okay, maybe that’s okay given Johnny’s dad has already moved on 2 minutes after mama’s death, however to take the baby to johnny’s house and lay it down to sleep before offering your tits to the man you abandoned. Bull shit! No!
It’s a film I’d watch again in a heartbeat. You can’t really take you’re eyes of the screen for a minute and the questions it leaves you with will invite you to return for another viewing.
Rating: 18 Length: 1hr 33 Release: 18.11.1963 Director: Lewis Teague About: Donna, a suburban housewife along with her young son Tad, drives out to the home where a perturbed St Bernard is driven insane by rabies. She must now save herself and her son from a brutal attack.
The second half of this movie is incredible; it taps into basic fears and keeps the body count coming. While Cujo started off as a sweet Saint Bernard he quickly becomes a volatile, foaming-at-the-mouth fuzzy monster. There are two massive dog-related scares that left me petrified; the initial attack on the car and the attack on Donna.
There’s an incredible shot in which the camera does a number of 360 degree spins, the revolution getting faster than a teacup ride. It has a emotive and physical effect that is perfect for a horror.
The bats that bite Cujo are proper scary. Like the teeth and the hissing. If there was anyone I was invested in from the start, it was poor Cujo. He was having a nice time, chasing a rabbit. He gets bitten and no one cares. No one gets him to a vet. Poor Cujo. Poor, poor, Cujo.
The music is rather tv-movie and a good chunk of it, doesn’t match the tone of the movie.
I feel as if something was missed out in regards to Donna and her views about dogs. Her reaction to Cujo when she meets him for the first time almost hints at a long standing fear or dislike. However, it’s never confirmed. Given that so much time is spent on exposition that had no value, I’m certain they could have dedicated a bit to this.
Donna makes some dumb-ass decisions, much like many people in horror movies.
The first half of the movie is total dog shit (excuse the pun). The film takes up over 40 minutes developing characters and I really don’t understand why. With the Camber family, the mother and son are built up to just disappear for the second act which feels a little pointless.
Then there’s the matter of the lead. What we learn about Donna in the first 45 minutes is that there are problems in her marriage, perhaps because of his stressful and totally BORING job. She’s ‘screwing around’ with her ex boyfriend. Yes, it gives us a final act misdirection when the husband is searching for her, but it also makes her an unlikable character who I am not invested in.
Tad, Tadpole, Tadders. The kid takes up a lot of the film and while research has suggested the opening scene has more significance within the book, it feels pointless. Although, I must admit I did like the way in which he prepared to launch himself into the bed once the light was turned out.
All in all, there’s way too much build up and not enough pay off. I’d have liked to have seen Donna and Tad get into their peril much earlier and perhaps one of the other deaths happening a little earlier.