It's been a part of my psyche since I was a kid. I'd mentioned it a post or two ago, and said I'd come clean on it someday... Well - this is it. Today I confess, I am COMPLETELY obsessed with sequels. Part 2 - Part VIII... it doesn't matter. If it's a member of a franchise, regardless if it's related in any way to its previous installments, I need to see it....particularly horror.
I prefer to see sequels listed with roman numerals... II, III, IX. It's even better when it's listed as "PART (roman numeral)." FRIDAY THE 13TH - PART VIII. THE HILLS HAVE EYES - PART II.
It irritates me when a sequel pretends not to be a sequel. LEPRECHAUN IN SPACE (Part 4). HELLRAISER: HELLSEEKER (Part 6). URBAN LEGENDS (Part 2). If you're embarrassed about how long-in-the-tooth your franchise is (think WITCHCRAFT 13), or fear sales will diminish because you're series has forgotten where it began 3 or 4 sequels ago (ahem, FREDDY'S DEAD), then maybe the film shouldn't be made.
A few franchises who proudly wore their sequel #'s:
FRIDAY THE 13th (1- 10) (minus Part 9)
SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1 -5)
WITCHCRAFT (1 - 13)
SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE (1-3)
MANIAC COP (1-3)
VICE ACADEMY (1-8)
POLICE ACADEMY (1-6) (minus Part 7)
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1-5) (minus Parts 6 & 7)
So what is it about seeing a story wear thin or a continuous title that has no connection to previous installments that keeps me coming back for more?
MORE TO COME....
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Review: Trash-tastic 70s TV DAWN, ALEXANDER, BORN INNOCENT, SARAH T & BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE
TV movies of the 1970s have been legendary in
my mind since I was old enough to know of their existence. I think my first official induction to the "Movie of the Week" (that's what they were called when we olden folks still only had three major networks and a few local channels to choose from) was the 1980 suspenser THE BABYSITTER. Watching Stephanie Zimbalist (REMINGTON STEEL), terrorize Quinn Cummings (FAMILY) and her parents Patty Duke (THE PATTY DUKE SHOW) and William Shatner (STAR TREK) terrified me, and made me seek out a plethora of other TV movie fodder in Chicago's WGN reruns like THE LEGEND OF LIZZIE BORDEN (1976), LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENED TO ROSEMARY'S BABY (1976), and even non-scary fare like MIRACLE ON 34th STREET (1973) and BILL (1981). Still, in my weekly checks of the TV guide, there were always 5 elusive titles: BORN INNOCENT (1974), SARAH T - PORTRAIT OF A TEENAGE ALCOHOLIC (1975), THE BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE (1976), DAWN (1976), ALEXANDER: THE OTHER SIDE OF DAWN (1977).
About 10 years ago I finally managed to snag 2 of these legendary "teens in trouble" flicks... the ultimate TV trashtastic BORN INNOCENT (in which 14-year-old Linda Blair goes to juvenile detention) and PLASTIC BUBBLE (starring newcomer John Travolta as a true-life teen allergic to everything in life and locked in an airtight chamber his entire life). Happily, both titles lived up to their reputations with effective stories and performances, bringing life and power to certain dramatic and shocking moments in each feature. So good, in fact, are the films, I actually felt they had been unfairly labeled as "trash"films. Certainly, one would assume (always a mistake) that the other3 films would live up to their own reputations...
With much thanks to a Facebook friend - Jason S - (no last name to protect
him), bootlegged dvds of SARAH T, DAWN and ALEXANDER (a.k.a. DAWN 2) (plus some bonus film titled HITCHHIKER) showed up in my mailbox last week. Immediately into my player went DAWN, starring the original "Jan Brady" Eve Plumb desperately trying to shed her clean-teen image by traipsing around as a 15-year-old runaway turned into a prostitute (Hello... Elizabeth Berkley and SHOWGIRLS!!!!). Now, does that plug line scream FABULOUS!?!?!?! A Brady running away, getting raped, smacked around by her pimp, whoring herself for $20, and falling in love with her very gay roommate?! Come on! A dream cum true!
So I wrapped myself up in a blanket, squeezed into the corner of the couch, slapped the bowl of popcorn in my lap and put the 2 liter of club soda (yeah, diabetes sucks) within arms reach - all prepped for a raunchy, randy good time... Then the movie started...
It sucked. Oh my dear lord did it suck. Boring, some of the worst dialogue I have EVER heard (and I watch A LOT of crap), acting that was bordering on embarrassing, choppy editing, non-existent lighting, clumsy action, and unlikely/unrealistic scenarios - which I only point out because the movie is clearly styled as an extended PSA for teens not to run away from home. Well, put those jogging shoes on, because you'll need to run screaming from this lame-ass lecture. It should also be noted that this movie perpetuates the image that by simply putting on some blue eye shadow and your hair in a bun you too will become an instant slut. Dawn doesn't even wear sexy slut outfits when she's hooking on Hollywood Boulevard. Her 101 Dalmatians fur coat and JC Penney's boots are simply so.... unsexy... At over 100 minutes, DAWN feels like a long, torturous trip to the library with nothing to do but hope it ends soon and that our heroine REALLY gets her ass whooped by her pimp for being in such a stupid movie.
So... then I moved on to the sequel ALEXANDER, which rejoins Plumb with her gay roommate/love interest Alexander played sensitively by soap opera heart-throb Leigh McCloskey (GENERAL HOSPITAL's eeevvviiiilll Damien Price). Now, you may ask why I bothered. Three part answer: first, I felt I owed it to Jason S. for taking the time to send me the dvd. Second, I'm a sequel freak... always have been. I mean, I watched all the WITCHCRAFT sequels... or least the first 11, even though not a single one of them were good. If it has a predecessor, I'm intrigued. That'll have to be another blog in the future. Anyway, third, I was extremely curious about the prevalent gay theme claimed in the synopsis, and how the controversial subject was handled - and how it ever made it to major network television! - in the 1970s.
So, in went the dvd and, admittedly, it was a much better film than I'd anticipated. Not nearly as stereotypical in its portrayal of gay life and men, I found the story of Alexander (suddenly no longer gay - just has sex with men for money) and his gay-for-pay lover (a closeted pro-football player!) well played out and rather honest. Although there's no actual sex or bedroom-type scenes, their romantic activities are instead depicted by romping on the beach in skimpy bathing suits. But their discussions on life in closet, and the impression that maybe a purportedly "straight" man might fall in love with another man not because of a sudden sexual attraction but rather an emotional connection gets points for taping into the CRYING GAME vein in a more realistic way.
In fact, all said and done, I'd have to say my interest was much better held in place t
hroughout this equally long movie. Less of a lecture than the original film, it's also much more professional on every level, including the actors. Plumb's "Dawn" character is shoved far into the background to focus on her dream-boy whom continues to claim he's coming to find her (and allows McCloskey to show he's a better actor). We even get an early cameo by then newcomer P.J. Soles (HALLOWEEN/CARRIE). Visually a much better looking film, even showing the scenes of Alex and his daddy in softer tones as their relationship deepens.
My only real complaints were the running time (again, about 20 minutes too long) and that story decision to say that Alex was straight to begin with. While it's never actually stated in DAWN that he's gay, his effeminate actions, refusal of Dawn's advances (which he does give into to get her to stay friends with him at the conclusion) and pretty blatant "social activities" were supposed to let viewers know which side of the rainbow he resided on. That's all tossed away at the beginning of the follow up. He claims to be only interested in girls, madly in love with Dawn and "resorts" back into hustling to pay his way after he can't pay his bills (mind you it's only 3 days after DAWN's conclusion). This is a HUGE plot whole in the character, as his entire purpose in the first film was to keep Dawn from doing the exact same thing. Still, it was nice to see Alex begin to question himself once his affair with the pro-player becomes more intimate -0 and unexpected jealousies arise. All-told, skip DAWN, and visit ALEXANDER.
So the score is 1-2. Recalling my love for BORN INNOCENT and what a superb job Linda Blair had done in portraying a runaway teen trying to escape an abusive, alcoholic father and mentally troubled mother, only to get tossed into an even worse situation by the juvenile system, my expectations reignited for her TV movie follow up SARAH T - PORTRAIT OF A TEENAGE ALCOHOLIC. Even more to my delight, the Universal Studios logo popped up, leading me to believe it certainly was at least going to be a higher-end feature. Then the PSA started...
Poor Sarah Travis (Blair - THE EXORCIST) is dealing with an overbearing mother (Verna Bloom - ANIMAL HOUSE), an absent father (Larry Hagman - DALLAS), a step-father who's trying too hard to both be her friend and authority figure (William Daniels - the voice of K.I.T.T. from KNIGHT RIDER!!!!), and a boyfriend (Mark Hamill - STAR WARS) who's wanted by all the other slutty girls at school. It's also apparently too much to handle when you're only 15, so poor Sarah turns to the hooch to relieve the pressure of just "being."
Another case of a film that goes on waaaaaaaay longer than it should, SARAH T's main problem is its inconsistent flow. In BORN INNOCENT, we see the
progress of Blair's emotional breakdown... Point A to Point B to Point C. When SARAH T begins, our protagonist is already in the throws of alcoholism. How and why did she first pick up that bottle? Simple teenage curiosity? Hard-partying parents (which the opening scenes allude to), who only throw one party and have drinks one time throughout the entire film? We do know that she sees booze as her liquid courage in an effective scene where she reveals a very pretty singing voice to a group of classmates after she's downed two bottles of vodka. Unfortunately there aren't enough of those scenes.
Similar to DAWN, SARAH T spends too much of its time pointing its finger at you rather than concentrating on telling you her personal story. She also doesn't seem like an alcoholic. If somebody sneezes the wrong way, she drinks. She shows up at an AA meeting with a bottle of booze. And she never likes the taste. She cringes every time she swallows. It also seems she only reaches for the bottle to shock - but really because there's been too much down time of blah blah blah. She becomes desperate enough to drink that she agrees to group sex with some unknown boys if they'll buy her a bottle. By 1970s standards this and a few other moments seem to have been shock worthy, but the story and editing are conceived in such a choppy manner, they don't really resonate anymore. Now they're just overly dramatic, and not in a fun, campy sort of way.
The acting is okay, and Blair is likable, but the character just isn't deep enough for us to care. The film finally comes to life emotionally at the end when her family finally confronts her issues and she runs off - feeling abandoned again by her father - only to kill her favorite riding horse in her latest drunken stupor. It's a shame, though, that these moments of effective tear-jerking are followed almost immediately by the closing credits. Consequences of your actions should have been dealt with earlier on rather than piling them all into the fleeting final minutes. (I should note there is one other effective moment at the halfway point when a loving maid is fired after being accused of the drinking all the booze in the house and Sarah refuses to tell the truth to save the woman's job.)
This film does have more of a heart than DAWN, and it's not a complete waste of time, but a stronger story and better editing would have earned it - like its counterparts - the reputation it sadly doesn't live up to. Seek out BORN INNOCENT and BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE to see how TV trash can be done right: effective, emotional, fun, scary, and long lasting.
my mind since I was old enough to know of their existence. I think my first official induction to the "Movie of the Week" (that's what they were called when we olden folks still only had three major networks and a few local channels to choose from) was the 1980 suspenser THE BABYSITTER. Watching Stephanie Zimbalist (REMINGTON STEEL), terrorize Quinn Cummings (FAMILY) and her parents Patty Duke (THE PATTY DUKE SHOW) and William Shatner (STAR TREK) terrified me, and made me seek out a plethora of other TV movie fodder in Chicago's WGN reruns like THE LEGEND OF LIZZIE BORDEN (1976), LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENED TO ROSEMARY'S BABY (1976), and even non-scary fare like MIRACLE ON 34th STREET (1973) and BILL (1981). Still, in my weekly checks of the TV guide, there were always 5 elusive titles: BORN INNOCENT (1974), SARAH T - PORTRAIT OF A TEENAGE ALCOHOLIC (1975), THE BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE (1976), DAWN (1976), ALEXANDER: THE OTHER SIDE OF DAWN (1977).
About 10 years ago I finally managed to snag 2 of these legendary "teens in trouble" flicks... the ultimate TV trashtastic BORN INNOCENT (in which 14-year-old Linda Blair goes to juvenile detention) and PLASTIC BUBBLE (starring newcomer John Travolta as a true-life teen allergic to everything in life and locked in an airtight chamber his entire life). Happily, both titles lived up to their reputations with effective stories and performances, bringing life and power to certain dramatic and shocking moments in each feature. So good, in fact, are the films, I actually felt they had been unfairly labeled as "trash"films. Certainly, one would assume (always a mistake) that the other3 films would live up to their own reputations...With much thanks to a Facebook friend - Jason S - (no last name to protect
him), bootlegged dvds of SARAH T, DAWN and ALEXANDER (a.k.a. DAWN 2) (plus some bonus film titled HITCHHIKER) showed up in my mailbox last week. Immediately into my player went DAWN, starring the original "Jan Brady" Eve Plumb desperately trying to shed her clean-teen image by traipsing around as a 15-year-old runaway turned into a prostitute (Hello... Elizabeth Berkley and SHOWGIRLS!!!!). Now, does that plug line scream FABULOUS!?!?!?! A Brady running away, getting raped, smacked around by her pimp, whoring herself for $20, and falling in love with her very gay roommate?! Come on! A dream cum true!So I wrapped myself up in a blanket, squeezed into the corner of the couch, slapped the bowl of popcorn in my lap and put the 2 liter of club soda (yeah, diabetes sucks) within arms reach - all prepped for a raunchy, randy good time... Then the movie started...
It sucked. Oh my dear lord did it suck. Boring, some of the worst dialogue I have EVER heard (and I watch A LOT of crap), acting that was bordering on embarrassing, choppy editing, non-existent lighting, clumsy action, and unlikely/unrealistic scenarios - which I only point out because the movie is clearly styled as an extended PSA for teens not to run away from home. Well, put those jogging shoes on, because you'll need to run screaming from this lame-ass lecture. It should also be noted that this movie perpetuates the image that by simply putting on some blue eye shadow and your hair in a bun you too will become an instant slut. Dawn doesn't even wear sexy slut outfits when she's hooking on Hollywood Boulevard. Her 101 Dalmatians fur coat and JC Penney's boots are simply so.... unsexy... At over 100 minutes, DAWN feels like a long, torturous trip to the library with nothing to do but hope it ends soon and that our heroine REALLY gets her ass whooped by her pimp for being in such a stupid movie.
So... then I moved on to the sequel ALEXANDER, which rejoins Plumb with her gay roommate/love interest Alexander played sensitively by soap opera heart-throb Leigh McCloskey (GENERAL HOSPITAL's eeevvviiiilll Damien Price). Now, you may ask why I bothered. Three part answer: first, I felt I owed it to Jason S. for taking the time to send me the dvd. Second, I'm a sequel freak... always have been. I mean, I watched all the WITCHCRAFT sequels... or least the first 11, even though not a single one of them were good. If it has a predecessor, I'm intrigued. That'll have to be another blog in the future. Anyway, third, I was extremely curious about the prevalent gay theme claimed in the synopsis, and how the controversial subject was handled - and how it ever made it to major network television! - in the 1970s.So, in went the dvd and, admittedly, it was a much better film than I'd anticipated. Not nearly as stereotypical in its portrayal of gay life and men, I found the story of Alexander (suddenly no longer gay - just has sex with men for money) and his gay-for-pay lover (a closeted pro-football player!) well played out and rather honest. Although there's no actual sex or bedroom-type scenes, their romantic activities are instead depicted by romping on the beach in skimpy bathing suits. But their discussions on life in closet, and the impression that maybe a purportedly "straight" man might fall in love with another man not because of a sudden sexual attraction but rather an emotional connection gets points for taping into the CRYING GAME vein in a more realistic way.
In fact, all said and done, I'd have to say my interest was much better held in place t
hroughout this equally long movie. Less of a lecture than the original film, it's also much more professional on every level, including the actors. Plumb's "Dawn" character is shoved far into the background to focus on her dream-boy whom continues to claim he's coming to find her (and allows McCloskey to show he's a better actor). We even get an early cameo by then newcomer P.J. Soles (HALLOWEEN/CARRIE). Visually a much better looking film, even showing the scenes of Alex and his daddy in softer tones as their relationship deepens.My only real complaints were the running time (again, about 20 minutes too long) and that story decision to say that Alex was straight to begin with. While it's never actually stated in DAWN that he's gay, his effeminate actions, refusal of Dawn's advances (which he does give into to get her to stay friends with him at the conclusion) and pretty blatant "social activities" were supposed to let viewers know which side of the rainbow he resided on. That's all tossed away at the beginning of the follow up. He claims to be only interested in girls, madly in love with Dawn and "resorts" back into hustling to pay his way after he can't pay his bills (mind you it's only 3 days after DAWN's conclusion). This is a HUGE plot whole in the character, as his entire purpose in the first film was to keep Dawn from doing the exact same thing. Still, it was nice to see Alex begin to question himself once his affair with the pro-player becomes more intimate -0 and unexpected jealousies arise. All-told, skip DAWN, and visit ALEXANDER.
So the score is 1-2. Recalling my love for BORN INNOCENT and what a superb job Linda Blair had done in portraying a runaway teen trying to escape an abusive, alcoholic father and mentally troubled mother, only to get tossed into an even worse situation by the juvenile system, my expectations reignited for her TV movie follow up SARAH T - PORTRAIT OF A TEENAGE ALCOHOLIC. Even more to my delight, the Universal Studios logo popped up, leading me to believe it certainly was at least going to be a higher-end feature. Then the PSA started...Poor Sarah Travis (Blair - THE EXORCIST) is dealing with an overbearing mother (Verna Bloom - ANIMAL HOUSE), an absent father (Larry Hagman - DALLAS), a step-father who's trying too hard to both be her friend and authority figure (William Daniels - the voice of K.I.T.T. from KNIGHT RIDER!!!!), and a boyfriend (Mark Hamill - STAR WARS) who's wanted by all the other slutty girls at school. It's also apparently too much to handle when you're only 15, so poor Sarah turns to the hooch to relieve the pressure of just "being."
Another case of a film that goes on waaaaaaaay longer than it should, SARAH T's main problem is its inconsistent flow. In BORN INNOCENT, we see the
progress of Blair's emotional breakdown... Point A to Point B to Point C. When SARAH T begins, our protagonist is already in the throws of alcoholism. How and why did she first pick up that bottle? Simple teenage curiosity? Hard-partying parents (which the opening scenes allude to), who only throw one party and have drinks one time throughout the entire film? We do know that she sees booze as her liquid courage in an effective scene where she reveals a very pretty singing voice to a group of classmates after she's downed two bottles of vodka. Unfortunately there aren't enough of those scenes.Similar to DAWN, SARAH T spends too much of its time pointing its finger at you rather than concentrating on telling you her personal story. She also doesn't seem like an alcoholic. If somebody sneezes the wrong way, she drinks. She shows up at an AA meeting with a bottle of booze. And she never likes the taste. She cringes every time she swallows. It also seems she only reaches for the bottle to shock - but really because there's been too much down time of blah blah blah. She becomes desperate enough to drink that she agrees to group sex with some unknown boys if they'll buy her a bottle. By 1970s standards this and a few other moments seem to have been shock worthy, but the story and editing are conceived in such a choppy manner, they don't really resonate anymore. Now they're just overly dramatic, and not in a fun, campy sort of way.
The acting is okay, and Blair is likable, but the character just isn't deep enough for us to care. The film finally comes to life emotionally at the end when her family finally confronts her issues and she runs off - feeling abandoned again by her father - only to kill her favorite riding horse in her latest drunken stupor. It's a shame, though, that these moments of effective tear-jerking are followed almost immediately by the closing credits. Consequences of your actions should have been dealt with earlier on rather than piling them all into the fleeting final minutes. (I should note there is one other effective moment at the halfway point when a loving maid is fired after being accused of the drinking all the booze in the house and Sarah refuses to tell the truth to save the woman's job.)
This film does have more of a heart than DAWN, and it's not a complete waste of time, but a stronger story and better editing would have earned it - like its counterparts - the reputation it sadly doesn't live up to. Seek out BORN INNOCENT and BOY IN THE PLASTIC BUBBLE to see how TV trash can be done right: effective, emotional, fun, scary, and long lasting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
