Jerry Goldsmith – People Talking

New and Old Twofer – ‘Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood’ and ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ (1979) – Friends Forever

These two movies don’t have anything intrinsically in common (other than friendship being at the core), but with all the talk about Tarantino’s next (and last) film quite possibly being an R-rated Star Trek movie, I figured why not pair these up.

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Julia Butters, Austin Butler, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Mike Moh, Luke Perry, Damian Lewis, Al Pacino, Brenda Vaccaro, Kurt Russell, Zoë Bell, Lorenza Izzo, Rebecca Gayheart, Michael Madsen, Martin Kove, James Remar, Clifton Collins Jr., Scoot McNairy, Marco Rodriguez, Keith Jefferson, Eddie Perez, Maurice Compte, Lew Temple, Samantha Robinson, Daniella Pick, Spencer Garrett, Damon Herriman, Lena Dunham, Rafał Zawierucha, Nicholas Hammond, Costa Ronin, Rumer Willis, Dreama Walker, Rachel Redleaf, Rebecca Rittenhouse, Ramón Franco, Clu Gulager, Kate Berlant

When I first heard that Quentin Tarantino’s new film would be dealing with, you know, that whole Charles Manson and his crazy killer hippie family thing, I was a bit disappointed, as it’s a subject matter well-worn in media portrayal, and, despite Tarantino’s talent, I was hoping for some ground far less traveled.

Silly me, I should have expected the unexpected from the very beginning, though I did go into the film fairly wide-eyed as I couldn’t glean much from the marketing as to what the movie would truly be.

I won’t do a deep dive into Tarantino’s career here (I’ve already done it over here), but I’m not sure it’s really necessary anyway, as Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood is the most uniquely different film he’s ever made; even more a radical departure than Jackie Brown. For one, it’s, well, I’ll call it a comedic fairy tale. Yes, it takes place in the reel world of 1969, and yes, there are scenes of drama and tension, but on balance, Hollywood is a comedy, and a rather wistful one at that (as wistful as Tarantino can manage, anyway).

At the core though is the friendship between shy, stammering actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his cocksure stuntman, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who are wonderful both together and separately. And of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Margot Robbie, who may not be Sharon Tate, but puts in an admirable portrayal nonetheless.

Really though, what I loved most was the reveling in the world of the film, and the amazing attention to detail in production design, costuming, sets, props, music, television, etc; and the way it blends the fictional with the factual is just fantastic (and since you don’t have anyone playing themselves, you don’t run into a situation like Robert Altman’s The Player, where you have to keep track of who’s a character and who isn’t).

It’s not a perfect comparison, but I got some American Graffiti vibes from this film, in the sense that it’s a tribute to a particular time and place, and it’s mostly a hangout movie that jumps around between a few different characters.

And that’s just fine by me.

Go see it, especially if you can catch it on film.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

Directed by Robert Wise
Written by Harold Livingston (screenplay) and Alan Dean Foster (story), based on the television series created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Persis Khambatta, Stephen Collins, Majel Barrett, Grace Lee Whitney, David Gautreaux, Marcy Lafferty, Jon Rashad Kamal, Mark Lenard, Tom Morga
Soundtrack: Jerry Goldsmith

Much like its pop culture counterpart, Star Wars, it’s difficult in 2019 to imagine a time when there was an achingly finite amount of Star Trek content, but that was exactly the case forty years ago.

After the cancellation of The Original Series in 1969 (there’s that year again), Star Trek was able find a larger and more dedicated following in syndication, enough to have most of the original cast (and writing staff) return for twenty-two episodes of the Emmy-winning Animated Series in 1973-74, but it would take another five years (and multiple fits and starts) before the much-anticipated live-action reunion would happen.

And so, when you see Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and wonder why so much of the first act consists of beauty shots of the starship Enterprise, remember two things:

A. The fans had been waiting ten years for this.
and
B. At the time, it was the most expensive movie ever made, so you can bet the filmmakers were going to milk every ounce out of their new spaceship toys (especially when The Original Series went out on much smaller screens and in much lower resolution than we’re used to today).

If 1981 was the Year of the Wolf (An American Werewolf in London, The Howling, and Wolfen), then 1979 was the Year of SPACE, as you had Paramount’s Star Trek, United Artists’ Moonraker, 20th Century Fox’s Alien, and Disney’s The Black Hole; all undoubtedly spurred on by the success of Star Wars in 1977, yet all unique in their own way, and in the case of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it is unabashedly a big screen, big budget version of the TV show, which is exactly why I love it (and all real Star Trek fans should).

In fact, other than Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, The Motion Picture comes the closest to matching the tone and spirit of The Original Series; and yet, it’s got a bit of a different twist, because much like the audience, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have all aged, grown, and moved on to other stations in life, so while it does eventually become the happy reunion we want, it’s more than a bit tense for a while as both the characters and the audience try to work things out.

Plot-wise, even though this is a forty-year old film, I still won’t spoil it, but, hey, it’s Star Trek. There’s a thing in space and they have to investigate. Boom.

Getting back to what makes the movie great though, other than the characters and the incredible visual spectacle, Jerry Goldsmith absolutely knocked it out of the park with his score. I doubt he could have realized at the time how influential it would be, because not only would the main theme be used for other films and, most notably, The Next Generation TV series, but it wouldn’t shock me to learn his Klingon theme is still being used today.

Lastly, for a film that’s often written off as a “failure,” The Motion Picture actually made plenty of money (#4 for the year at the box office both domestically and worldwide), the problem was that Paramount expected a bigger return on their $46 million investment, and Gene Roddenberry was blamed for the cost overruns (not to mention the mixed critical reviews), leading to his being promoted out of creative control and handing the production reigns to Harve Bennett, who worked with relatively meager budgets in comparison.

Still, thanks to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, we got five more sequels with the original cast, and, in fact, some of the groundwork for Next Generation was actually laid for this film first (most notably Decker and Ilia led to Riker and Troi).

I love it, I’m so glad I got to see it on the big screen at Alamo Drafthouse, and thanks to Fathom Events you’ll be able to see it later this year, too, so, do yourself a favor and go check it out!

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘RussellMania’: The Kurt Russell Marathon – Land of the Free

Another Super Bowl Saturday, another actor marathon at Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers: Caged, Stallone Zone, Van Dammage, Burt Day, ‘HEY, ARNOLD!‘, and now, RussellMania 2018.

I had sky high hopes for this one, but for the first time in attending these events, I actually left fairly disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, I love Kurt Russell, I love my new hat, and I got to see four movies I had never seen before (which I do place a certain value on), but overall it just wasn’t quite the same enjoyable ride I’ve become accustomed to over the past five years.

The man himself needs no introduction though, so let’s get into these movies.

Movie #1: Tango & Cash (1989)

Right off the bat, I was wrong.

Seeing as how this film lead off Stallone Zone (click the link to read the Tango & Cash review), I figured there was no way we’d see it again here, but, as I said, I was wrong.

I will say, it was interesting watching it again as a Kurt Russell movie rather than a Stallone movie, but I don’t really have anything more to say now than I did in 2014.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie #2: Breakdown (1997)

I remember my cousin putting this on once at my aunt and uncle’s house, probably around the time it first hit DVD (which was technology beyond my imagination at the time), only I don’t think I watched past the first half hour or so, so I never realized until seeing it on the big screen that Breakdown turns into an action movie by the end (spoilers?).

Before that though, the movie feels extremely Hitchcockian, so much so that you could believe it’s a remake of something Hitch actually made (though to my knowledge it is not and I’ll happily give full credit to writer/director Jonathan Mostow). The story’s simple enough (I’d actually make a gentle comparison to The Belko Experiment, just in terms of imagining yourself in the same situation), and it doesn’t fall into the trap of becoming too twisty, which I appreciated.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal taste as to whether or not the third act works for you. I’m okay with it, but I understand others feeling somewhat betrayed by it.

Either way though, I’d still say it’s solid.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #3: Used Cars (1980)

Before Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale made one of the greatest movies of all time (review here), they had a string of less successful endeavors (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, 1941), culminating with 1980’s Used Cars (although they did write one of my favorite episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker).

Used Cars isn’t great, and its definitely a touch bloated, but it’s not without its charms. For one thing, it’s Kurt’s first R-rated performance, which is interesting to see at odds with his still-lingering Disney good guy persona, and it’s got Jack Warden doing some classic one-actor-playing-twin-brothers schtick, and a good amount of the satirical humor still holds up today.

It also hearkens back to a time when comedy wasn’t strictly a bargain basement genre and studios weren’t afraid to throw in a little more production value when necessary, even for an non-family friendly comedy.

Not everybody will fully enjoy Used Cars because it’s such a product of its time, but for me, that’s why I found it interesting and why I’d give it another watch someday.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #4: Executive Decision (1996)

Speaking of the kinds of movies that don’t get made anymore, let’s talk Executive Decision (which is one I was hoping for, for better or worse).

Stuff like this just has a certain je ne sais quoi that feels missing from Hollywood of the present (the fact that it was made pre-9/11 definitely has something to do with that). It’s not like we have a dearth of action movies these days, but Executive Decision takes itself seriously in both story and tone where a movie today would have a wink and a nod (it’s no surprise that the last similar example I can think of, Behind Enemy Lines, was also a story by Jim and John Thomas).

I think it’s fair to say that Kurt plays against type here, at least relative to the “action man” roles he was known for at the time, but, even in a lame tuxedo and nerdy spectacles, he’s still cooler than we could ever dream of being.

“All-star cast” may be a stretch (it’s no Airport ’77), but, at the time, Executive Decision certainly had a mix of experienced pros and hot up-and-comers (most notably Halle Berry). Given that it’s a 90s action movie, I’ll say everyone does a fine job.

That said, let’s call it what it is, “Die Hard on a plane.”

Still worth a watch though, just get comfortable.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #5: Escape from L.A. (1996)

This is not how I wanted the day to end.

I don’t want to merely compare this movie to Escape from New York, but I don’t think it leaves you with much of a choice.

Honestly, Escape from L.A. is depressingly bad in comparison to its predecessor. New York was a low-budget underdog that managed to find an audience and punch a bit above its weight class. It stands on its reputation more so than its actual quality, but at the same time it was a fairly progressive movie in terms of film-making, what with the use of the Panaglide (an early “cousin” of the Steadicam) and new techniques that allowed Dean Cundey to shoot many city blocks deep using only streetlamps for lighting; not to mention how the film allowed Kurt Russell to truly pivot away from his Disney comedy roots.

On the other hand, L.A. is essentially The Asylum version of New York, with a copy-and-paste script, horrendous CGI effects, and terribly cheesy performances. In fact, the only element you can point to as being better than the original is the fact that they shot a scene at the real L.A. Coliseum, but the movie is still so terrible that it doesn’t even matter.

Escape from L.A. is awful, it was rightfully a box office bomb, and if you truly love Escape from New York, you should never ever watch it.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

So, there you have it. Not the best day, but definitely not all bad. Just kind of middling, and therefore not what I expected given Kurt’s body of work.

I guess they can’t all be winners.

This hat though, this hat is a winner.

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘HEY, ARNOLD!’: A Schwarzenegger Marathon – See You At The Party

Since the doors first opened in August of 2013, Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers has hosted four fantastic actor-centric marathons: Caged, Stallone Zone, Van Dammage, and Burt Day (aka Cristina Cacioppo‘s Westchester curtain call).

Enter 2017. New Year. New programmer. New marathon.

Lovingly curated by Justin LaLiberty, “Hey, Arnold!” was an epic half-day celebration consisting of five mystery Schwarzenegger films, all on 35mm prints, spanning ten years of the prime of his career (and sparking such debates as “Which Arnold is better: beard or no beard?” …Actually, that’s not a debate at all. Bearded Arnold is clearly superior).

And if that weren’t enough, there was, in fact, a giant cake (which was delicious, by the way) to celebrate his upcoming 70th birthday, among other surprises.

At this point, the man himself needs little introduction, so let’s jump in.

Movie #1: ‘True Lies’ (1994)

It sounds weird to say because he’s been so influential (for better or worse), but, since his directorial debut in 1981 (which he’d rather you forget), James Cameron has put only eight feature films under his belt, which makes the fact that Arnold has starred in three of them even more significant. Frankly, I’d say True Lies is the last Cameron movie worth watching, but that’s a different discussion.

This was the longest film of the day (and second longest of Arnold’s career, behind T2), which was good, because when you’re stuck to your seat for ten hours, you’d rather get the biggest chunk out of the way first.

Anyway, True Lies is a movie I’ve seen the third act of perhaps dozens of times, as it was a cable staple of the 2000s, so it was definitely worth seeing in it’s entirety, as there was much I either didn’t remember or straight up hadn’t seen (like the fact that a good chunk of the move is in Washington D.C.).

A remake of the 1991 French hit La totale ! (which I totally did not learn just now), True Lies is a top notch 90s action thriller that’s also unafraid of laying the comedy on thick. I particularly enjoy the long, slow push-ins on Arnold’s steely eyes when he knows something the person he’s talking to does not. It’s also a surprisingly grounded film given its over the top nature. Honestly, the only element that took me out of the movie was the fact that Charlton Heston’s character had a patch over his obviously scarred eye, as if he walked in from the set of a different movie.

Really though, the magic of True Lies, other than the action set-pieces and ‘splosions, is that just about everyone in the cast is used appropriately, from Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, to Tia Carrere and Art Malik, to Tom Arnold (fantastic in this) and the now late (sadly) Bill Paxton, everyone’s playing a part they can easily dive into.

It may not be the biggest and baddest Arnold movie in terms of a testosterone-fueled thrill ride, but it’s a very good action/comedy that a lot of people can appreciate (and that doesn’t even include the one-liners [Spoiler]).

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie #2: ‘The Running Man’ (1987)

Ah, the far, distant, post-apocalyptic future of 2017!

You won’t hear me say The Running Man is bad, because it’s not. It’s got a solid backbone of a Steven E. de Souza script (just look up his resume; it’s ridiculous), and a cast that’s chock-full of great character actors and action men. I just can’t help but wonder if the movie could have been something more with a more visionary director at the helm. Not that I blame Paul Michael Glaser. Reportedly, producer Rob Cohen went through four other directors (including Andrew Davis, who got production off the ground but quickly went over budget and behind schedule; and who later would direct Arnold in Collateral Damage) before hiring Glaser to basically just get the movie done.

The final product of The Running Man is still eminently entertaining and audience-pleasing, even if not every visual concept works perfectly (it also receives bonus points for giving us some bearded Arnold, if only briefly). Arnold is great, the rogues gallery is great, and the casting of Richard Dawson as an evil version of himself is a move that feels years ahead of its time (you could argue the movie stands on his shoulders more than anyone else; not to mention it leads to one of my favorite incidental lines from Aqua Teen Hunger Force).

The Running Man may not be an all-time great piece of science fiction (like another movie we’ll get to), but it’s no less influential (Hunger Games, anyone?), and, above all, it’s fun, especially with an audience.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Just before The Running Man started we all received one of these glasses, which was a generous and welcome surprise:

Movie #3: ‘Kindergarten Cop’ (1990)

This movie’s something of a miracle.

I mean, I don’t know about you, but if you pitched me Kindergarten Cop, a comedy/action film starring Arnold as an undercover police officer posing as a substitute kindergarten teacher (who has no experience) in order to track down the estranged family of a fugitive criminal, I’d tell you straight up that this concept has failure written all over it.

And yet, somehow, it works.

How much credit should go to whom, I don’t know, but given Ivan Reitman’s track record with Ghost Busters, wrangling that film together from three or four disparate creative visions, I’m going to bet he gets the lion’s share.

Anyway, Kindergarten Cop isn’t perfect. It’s a bit uneven and a bit clunky at times (understandable given the elements it’s trying to hammer together), but, what little action there is is well executed, the comedy mostly works, and, again, it gets bonus points for some bearded Arnold action.

Frankly, the film’s biggest strength is that it never goes completely over the top (except maybe when Pamela Reed suddenly puts on an Austrian accent to maintain cover, but that’s not unforgivable). There’s enough subtlety and realism in the plot, the characters, and, especially, the children, to hold everything together when a different movie would just come unglued.

It wasn’t my favorite of the day, but I’ll be less inclined to flip the channel on it in the future.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #4: ‘Eraser’ (1996)

The world of film is not without its binary planets that eventually spin off onto different trajectories. For example, the Coen Brothers collaborated with Sam Raimi earlier in their careers, but it was they, not Raimi, who went on to near-constant critical acclaim in the proceeding decades.

Similarly, Frank Darabont began his career writing with Chuck Russell, but it was he, not Russell, who went onto direct such films as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, whereas Chuck went on to direct The Mask. Not that we have anything against Chuck Russell, because he also went on to direct a little movie called Eraser.

Every Alamo Drafthouse actor-centric marathon features at least one movie that throws people for a loop, and I’m going to say Eraser is the left field pick in this case, if for no other reason than one of my friends and I had completely discounted it as a possibility (mostly on account of the CGI reptiles).

However, I have to say, Eraser earned its keep.

It may not have been the best movie of the day, nor the best movie of Arnold’s career, but Eraser has a lot going for it. Good villains, solid supporting characters, and enough mid-Nineties action to keep you going for a couple of hours. Whatever elements that haven’t aged well are smoothed over by a rather impressive top-to-bottom cast (including James Caan, James Coburn, and James Cromwell, just to name a few) all putting in solid shifts.

It’ll hurt your brain if you think about it too hard, but, like most of Arnold’s movies, if you’re down for a fun ride, Eraser delivers.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #5: ‘Total Recall’ (1990)

This film was the pièce de résistance, both for the day itself and for me personally, as I’d never seen it before.

Paul Verhoeven as a filmmaker (and perhaps in his life in general) is nothing if not provocative (I mean, if you haven’t seen Elle…it’s provocative), though, by his own standards, Total Recall may be his least provocative movie (you know, outside of all the horrific gore).

What Total Recall is, however, is an extremely successful sci-fi/action film; an all-time great, in my frank opinion. I won’t claim to be an expert, but it’s generally accepted that Philip K. Dick is a difficult writer to translate from page to screen (e.g. Blade Runner‘s 10,000 different versions), but I’m going to take an educated guess that Total Recall is the best filmed adaptation of his work (or at the very least in the running for such an honor).

In all seriousness though, this is a big, bad, beautiful movie, full of amazing visuals (shot in Mexico, which worked well for Arnold before), bloody violence, and a wry sense of humor, while also featuring a good hard sci-fi story with plenty of twists and turns. Total Recall is also a touch philosophical, asking the question of what makes us who we are, which I appreciate.

Naturally, of course, there’s more than a few familiar faces from Verhoeven’s other work (most notably Ronny Cox, Sharon Stone, and Michael Ironside).

On the one hand, I don’t know why it took me so long to see this one, but, on the other, I’m glad I got to see it for the first time in the same way everybody else did nearly three decades ago.

It’s a real treasure.

Rating: ★★★★½

So, that’s it; that’s all. A great day all around.

Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers for hosting and Justin LaLiberty for curating, and to all the servers, runners, cooks, and bartenders who took care of all of us in the audience. My “Mind Eraser” cocktail (whatever was in it) was quite enjoyable.

Unlike in the past, we know what next year’s marathon will be, and I couldn’t be more excited: Russellmania, here we come!

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 3

‘The Muppet Movie’ (1979)

It wouldn’t be until the Nineties that the whole television-to-movie adaptation became so ubiquitous, but 1979 was a pretty big year for it. After all, there was ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture‘, I guess we could throw in ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ (although it wasn’t their first movie), and, of course, there’s ‘The Muppet Movie’.

Watching this film taught me a valuable lesson, and that’s that all the celebrity cameos in the world don’t matter a lick if you don’t have an interesting story. Frankly, I found the “guest star appearances” to be frustrating; most of them are there and gone in the blink of an eye. The only one who gets close to a full scene is Mel Brooks, and even he can only brighten the movie so much (although I did find a humorous parallel between his scene and the torture scene in ‘SPECTRE‘, but that’s neither here nor there).

This is not to say that ‘The Muppet Movie’ doesn’t have its moments, it’s just that they come so few and far between, and the core story is such a boring tease that I can’t recommend this to anyone trying to get their Muppet (or general Jim Henson) fix. Perhaps the problem is that the Muppets on their own aren’t very interesting, but when they’re telling a real story (or doing sketch comedy on TV), even if its somebody else’s (e.g. ‘Christmas Carol‘ and ‘Treasure Island‘), you can mine a lot more humor out of that.

Hate to say it, but this one’s easily on my skip list.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

‘Marathon Man’ (1976)

If you didn’t already know, and without really spoiling anything, there’a a famous scene in this movie involving some malevolent dentistry and the repetitive question, “Is it safe?” which had quite a cultural impact (maybe not the same as what ‘Jaws‘ did to the beach, but not dissimilar). I wish I could say otherwise, but the mark left by that particular scene belies the overall quality of the movie.

‘Marathon Man’ isn’t bad, it’s worth seeing once, but seeing it multiple times won’t help you with your confusion. I’ve seen it twice (once at home and once in a theater), watching intently on both occasions, and there are still elements I don’t have a firm grasp on, despite the story not appearing to be all that complicated, so, just be prepared for that if you ever watch it.

What’s even more frustrating is that the screenplay was written by William Goldman, adapted from his own novel (which reportedly is way better than the movie; maybe I’ll get around to reading it if I ever start reading books again), so such confusion seems needless, but I’ll give him a little leeway since it was his first time adapting his own work (he’d have a little more success with that later on).

That said, there are certain elements of this movie that are downright wonderful. In particular, Laurence Olivier’s performance is something to be truly savored; perhaps the ultimate embodiment of the phrase “deliciously evil.” It’s funny that Oliver quickly moved from a Mengele pastiche in this film to a Mengele hunter in 1978’s ‘The Boys From Brazil‘, a movie I find to be more entertaining (though admittedly more sensational) than ‘Marathon Man’, but I prefer Olivier’s performance in the latter.

Anyway, as I said, worth seeing once. Lots of great NYC stuff.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

‘Psycho II’ (1983)

Thought Disney were the ones who first thought of releasing sequels decades (and decades) after the original films? Then you don’t know about ‘Psycho II’ (or ‘III’, or ‘IV’).

The original ‘Psycho‘ is a seminal piece of cinema history. Not only did it inspire the slasher genre (pretty much starting with 1978’s ‘Halloween’ and continuing through today), but it’s probably the first best example of “classy sleaze” (a term recently coined by Red Letter Media’s Mike Stoklasa to refer to such films as ‘Gone Girl‘ and ‘Don’t Breathe‘). It’s also a movie I stepped away from for a number of years, as back in college I had to do a shot analysis of the first half hour for a film class, so I got rather sick of the sight of it, but I was happy to revisit it in preparation for the sequel (although ‘Psycho II’ does begin with the most famous scene from ‘Psycho’).

‘Psycho II’ is definitely not terrible. Given that it’s a sequel made two decades after the fact, it’s actually pretty good, and I appreciate that the filmmakers were able to get not only Anthony Perkins (giving a surprisingly sympathetic performance) but also Vera Miles to reprise their roles from the first movie (John Gavin was hypothetically available, but was otherwise occupied at the time as the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico). However, and I feel like I’ve been saying this a lot lately, what begins (and sustains for quite a while) as an engrossing and effective film eventually goes on for too long and kind of falls apart in the third act, which is a shame.

Performance-wise, it’s a mixed bag. Perkins delivers great work as Norman, and Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia put in solid shifts (though abbreviated) in support, but I can’t decide if Meg Tilly’s performance is adequate or terrible, and I was not feeling Hugh Gillin as the sheriff, although that may be more so because of the character as written (hard to tell sometimes).

And, once again, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention Jerry Goldsmith’s score. It’s not his best work, but I give him credit for doing something original and not merely doing a Bernard Herrmann impression.

So, yeah; not great, but not terrible. If you love the original ‘Psycho’ so much that you don’t want anything to spoil your image of it, maybe skip this one, but if you’re open to a continuation of the story, it’s worth checking out.

Rating: ★★★☆☆