I made it through another semester, and to celebrate, I watched a gaggle of TVMs! I thought it would be fun to jot down some brief thoughts on each film, making it a one-woman-blogathon!
Eyes of a Stranger Network: NBC Original Airdate: December 7th, 1992
First up was this early 90s curio starring the babe-a-licious Parker Stevenson and the gorgeous Emma Samms as an upper class couple who run afoul of a two-bit hoodlum (Michael Easton), and his lovely professor/girlfriend (Joan Chen, working some nifty silver flats in the last scene). The couple's lives collide during a rainstorm, and all paths lead to accidental murder, badly thought out cover-ups, some not bad small screen sex scenes and exploding boats.
Written and directed by Richard Friedman, the mastermind behind the goofy but lovable Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge, Stranger is a bit of a convoluted mess. The worst issue was the timeline. For example, Samms finds a videotape on a boat, and after some major mayhem, the boat is burnt to a crisp, and then at least two days pass before the tape comes into question again. Samms tells someone she found the tape yesterday, which would have been impossible.
It’s also ridiculously predictable, but watchable because of the cast, and the overall confident and slick look of the film.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a sexier version of this movie exists, but was edited for television. It has all the markings of those early 90s erotic thrillers that I enjoy so much. Interesting then, that it was produced by Doris Keating, whose father directed such films as The Diary of Knockers McCalla and Fanny Hill Meets Dr. Erotico. I don’t necessarily recommend this to anyone except the Samms or Stevenson completest. Since I fall into the latter, I can’t really complain. Stevenson takes off his shirt just enough to keep me interested! Yes, I'm superficial, and easy to please.
Valentine Magic on Love Island Network: NBC Original Airdate: February 15, 1980
As if Supertrain wasn’t enough of a disaster for NBC, the execs tried to put a spin on Love Boat and Fantasy Island yet again in this choppy, and chaotic romantic comedy that is somewhat watchable and sometimes fun, but not nearly as great as the similar Three on Date.
Eight singles visit Love Island in the hopes of becoming four couples, and… hmmm… if I do my math correctly, yeah, I think we do end up with four couples. I guess that’s a testament to how haphazard the whole thing is, that I had go back through my mind to remember what happened (and the movie just ended 10 minutes ago). Still, gotta love (even if just a little) anything that stars Bill Daily, Lisa Hartman, Dominique Dunne, Christopher Knight, Janis Page, Adrienne Barbeau and Dody Goodman, right? And that’s just part of the game cast, who make the most of the crap material they were handed. (Random trivia: This was the second time Knight and Dunne appeared in a TVM together. The other telefilm was 1979's Diary of a Teenage Hitchhiker)
Paige is the Mr. Roarke who mixes up her “white” magic in the hopes of helping people reach complete coupledom (or consciously couple as the young kids might say). Of course, there has to be a little mismatching and mischief first, where little to no hilarity ensues, but there’s a pretty cool costume party. Unfortunately, this Dick Clark production does not have a good beat and I had a hard time dancing to it (see what I did there). But, like the small screen sucker I am, it was good to finally see it.
Sorry, Wrong Number Network: USA Original Airdate: October 11, 1989
This movie has been on my “To Watch” list for what seems like forever. A TVM based on a theatrical film, which was based on a radio play sparked my interest, and yes, I like Loni’s TVMs quite a bit (thinking of My Mother’s Secret Life right at this moment!), and it’s a USA Original… and… and… well, you get my drift. Despite mixed reviews, there are some films I simply need to see for myself. Luckily, although this remake isn’t, like, the best movie ever or anything, it’s a pretty fun timewaster with a surprisingly suspenseful ending.
Loni is Madeline, a Dynasty-rich invalid who has a wild New Year's Eve getting her lines crossed over and over again. Overhearing two men planning a murder of an unknown woman in Madeline’s neighborhood, this housebound heiress starts to uncover the mystery behind her strained marriage, and the real danger that lurks just outside of her door.
Slick and confident, Sorry is also helped by a wonderfully capable cast including Patrick Macnee, Hal Holbrook, and OMG hawt Carl Weintraub. It’s not like you don’t know where this one is going, but the wonderful pacing and crisp and glamorous aesthetics are well worth a look. My favorite of the three films I watched.
Network: NBC Original Air Date: May 11th & 15th, 2014
As a fan of Roman Polanski’s excellent adaptation of Rosemary’s Baby in 1968, I was a little put off by the news of a remake, which aired this past week on NBC. However, I would be lying if I said I wasn’t at least slightly curious as to how they were going to update/change/reimagine the classic tale of pregnancy panic and Satan worshipping. Also, the idea of making it a mini-series seemed both odd and fascinating. So, what can I say, I was in. And, while I wasn't in love with Rosemary's Baby, I did see some flickers of promise, and I also appreciated NBC's return to the classic TVM era.
The beautiful Zoe Saldana (who was also one of the producers) is achingly naïve, sometimes to the point of frustration. As Rosemary, she is a fish-out-water wife who follows her ambitious but somewhat unsuccessful husband/writer to France where he’s landed a nice teaching gig. They have recently lost a baby and the pain of this miscarriage has left Rosemary terrified of trying to get pregnant again. But the couple still seem very happy in their tiny apartment. They’ve also made quick friends with the prominent and wealthy Castavets, who get the couple to move into their gorgeous building after their place catches on fire. Of course the Castavets have something more devilish on their minds, and when Rosemary successfully takes the baby plunge again, it’s obvious that the Prince of Darkness has finally found a mommy.
Ratings were low for Sunday’s airing (and I imagine Thursday’s episode will not fare even as well as the first night), and critical reception was mostly indifferent. Yet, despite the disappointing viewership, I do hope that the Peacock Network keeps in line with this type of programming. NBC also produced a live version of The Sound of Music last year, and while it may not be my cup of tea, I respect that they were thinking outside of the box, and also embracing the traditional. Likewise, although I’m not particularly interested in Hollywood Game Night or Maya Rudolph’s upcoming variety show, I like that NBC is playing around with some of the older tropes of free TV programing in an attempt to find a unique niche for themselves. I’m probably more prone to keep an eye on NBC because of this, so in that respect, Rosemary’s Baby was a bit of a success.
And, I did enjoy some things about the Rosemary's Baby remake. This mini-series is slow but hyper-stylized and gorgeous. The first half is engaging, and, even at times, wondrous and suspenseful. I also loved Carole Bouquet’s subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) menacing turn as Margaux Castavet (athough admittedly, I missed the more eccentric round of character actors that filled up the original film). The second half is not quite as successful as the first and I feel the mini-series could have easily been a one-night event. And I guess that’s the key word here… Event (NBC did pimp Rosemary as an “NBC Event”), because the network harkens back those TV movies of yesteryear, making it feel like one of those programs I just had to catch. And I not only welcomed the sentiment, I loved it.
I love Henry Winkler. Truly. Arthur Fonzarelli is one of the most lovable and enduring characters from my childhood. And I’m always pleasantly amused when someone busts out with an “Ayyye!” And that happens more often than you'd think! Of course, we loved Fonzie because of Winkler’s wonderful performance that held just the right amounts of machismo, over the top humor, with a little pathos thrown in to keep us on our toes.
A newspaper promo for An American Christmas Carol
However, I would be lying if I said I had seen a lot of Winker's non-Happy Days work. Oh, certainly, I've gotten a taste of his range, in movies like Scream, and his fantastically sinister turn as an abuser in the 1993 TVM The Only Way Out (a movie I’ve been dying to revisit. I have very strong memories of watching it when it premiered), but I’ve missed out on his more famous work such as Heroes and Arrested Development. So, I was eager to expand on my knowledge of Winkler’s filmography when I sat down the other day with An American Christmas Carol. This film is an obvious rift on the Charles Dickens’ classic tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, only now we are in Depression-era America, and Scrooge is Slade, a sinister old man who finds pleasure in repossessing important items from struggling customers on Christmas Eve. Ack. However, he’s due for a visit from a few spirits who hope to show him the errors of his ways.
A few years ago, I was in a class that concentrated on film adaptations. I chose to make a presentation on A Christmas Carol because it gave me an excuse to re-watch A Muppet Christmas Carol, and because I had never actually read the book. I had to watch quite a few Carol movies and enjoyed them all. The story resonates to some extent with just about every era, because as much as we want to wax nostalgic about the past, there is always some kind of struggle with inequality and indifference. Dickens’ reminds us time and again that we should always remember that compassion is free, so give it away, dammit!
OK, he doesn’t get all extreme on the reader or anything, but indeed, it is a great story that teaches us that good will isn't just a thrift store.
So, we get that I love the story and relate to it, but what is Winkler and company going to do with this version of it? Ah, the million dollar question!
An American Christmas Carol is both a gorgeous success and a bit of a bore at the same time. It’s never terrible, not by a long shot, but at certain points, it’s slow and, gah, even a bit dull. The pacing in the second half is almost too meticulous, and I found myself struggling to keep my eyes open. And that was a bummer.
That said, An American Christmas Carol is still a beautiful trip back in time. The costumes and sets are splendid, and the crisp cinematography of Richard Ciupka is stunning (btw, Richard also did the cinematography for Ilsa Tigress of Sibera. I think I’m in love!). The visuals alone make this a film worth checking out.
As for Winkler, I’ve read some across-the-board reactions to his performance. Many felt that the odd old age makeup hampered his abilities to fully flex his actor muscles. With regards to the outlandish makeup, I have to agree. Thirty years later, and Hollywood still hasn't gotten old people makeup right, so imagine what audiences were thinking in 1979! Otherwise, I feel Winkler does a good job as the older Slade, and I enjoyed that vigorous step he gets from the joy of taking from the underprivileged because it is turned into a sprightly bounce after he develops a compassionate outlook on life. Joy to the world!
It would seem Winkler felt that giving Slade a spring in his step was all part of the process. In an interview, the actor said the filmmakers wanted to put weights on his feet as a way to keep him slow moving. But, Winkler said, “I realized that the elderly want to be younger and so I took off the weights immediately after the first day of shooting and made him more spry.”
Winkler also confessed that he spent a total of 96 hours in the makeup chair during the seven-week shoot! In the end, the actor was very happy with the results, although he was initially hesitant to take on the role because he felt the media was set on pigeonholing him as The Fonz. However, the consummate Winkler decided his career was all about risks. This has obviously paid off, and while An American Christmas Carol is not a perfect film, it does hit the holiday spot and is definitely worth a watch.
You can either buy An American Christmas Carol on DVD or you can watch it on Amazon Instant Video!
Network:CBS Original Air Dates: October 19th - 20th, 1981
Although Catherine Hicks proclaimed she didn’t want to do anymore television after her well-received performance as Marilyn Monroe in Marilyn: The Untold Story, the actress returned to the small screen just one year later to take on all the soapy goodness of The Valley of the Dolls. In an interview, Catherine revealed that she modeled her version of Anne Welles (originally played by the gorgeous Barbara Parkins) after Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz. You see, Hollywood is a lot like Oz with its color and dreams and drugs… or something like that.
Produced by Jacqueline Susann’s widower, Irving Mansfield, he called this remake a “labor of love,” and it also marked his return as a producer (he’d quit the business to become his wife’s press agent). Mansfield fell under the scrutiny of Reverend Donald Wildmon who ran the Coalition for Better Television and threatened a boycott of the movie. At the time the book had sold more than 27 million copies, and CBS seemed unfazed by dedicating five hours of their time to this objectionable content, er, I mean programming. As far as I know, It aired in its intended form, objectionable content and all.
In the remake, Anne is now an entertainment lawyer, young, hungry and well on her way to success. Her roommate is the spunky Neely O’Hara (Lisa Hartman) who’s got the pipes for a singing career but lacks confidence unless it comes out of a bottle of alcohol or pills. And there’s Jennifer North (Veronica Hamel) who was 37 at the time of filming. I only mention this because Sharon Tate, who played Jennifer in the original, was just 25 and much closer to a realistic modeling age. That said, Hamel is amazing in the role, and the best part of the movie. She has a lot of problems, and has to deal with several hefty issues such as abortion and breast cancer.
The trio are varied in their connections to each other. Jennifer is more on the outskirts and seems to form her own movie (the part in France is ridiculously awesome), but Neely and Anne are extremely close.
And then there’s Lyon Burke (David Birney) who is a successful director and a major seducer. He’s also pretentious as all get out, but since I think Birney is sex-on-a-stick, I let my few quibbles go. I should mention that Bert Convy has a smaller role, but the idea of him and Birney in the same room was enough to make me squeal in delight. Convy is fantastic as Tony Polar the famous crooner who doesn’t know he has a degenerative mental disease. And hunky Gary Collins shows up for awhile as well. However, the true stud of Dolls is James Coburn who plays Henry Bellamy, a big time attorney whom Anne works for. He’s wonderful, charismatic and definitely the best catch in the movie (he would have been second best if Tony didn’t have dementia).
Someone on IMDb called this movie “Valley of the Dulls,” and unfortunately, I would have to agree. While I enjoyed the movie – of course I’d enjoy it, look at the cast – it definitely lacks the camp appeal that made the first film so damn fabulous. Of course, it’s been eons since I’ve seen the original movie, so maybe I’m remembering it wrong, but I recall O’Hara’s big catfight with Helen Lawson as being much more fun (the gorgeous Jean Simmons plays Helen in the remake - with perhaps too much dignity). In the remake that scene just sort of is. Why don’t you watch ‘em and compare for yourself by clicking on this link.
The film is most appealing for its costumes and the game cast who do their best to keep things realistically dramatic. And as I mentioned, Hamel is a knockout as Jennifer. Her story is nothing short of tragic, and the actress did a wonderful job making her ride seem so very painful. She also shares a short scene with the late, great David Hess who plays a French artist. I had to sigh when I saw him, since he passed away just a few months ago. Looking back, my general reaction was to sigh at the loss of so many wonderful actors (Coburn, Convy, Simmons), while also lamenting the missed potential of some grand absurdities. It should also be mentioned that the dolls in the title are a little lacking here as well. Neely indulges big time, but in the just-shy-of-a-four-hour-running-length, it’s simply not enough.
Although Dolls aired it’s second night’s episode against the World Series’ opening game, the mini-series did alright in the ratings, scoring a spot at #6 for the first part (tying with Dukes of Hazzard!) and falling to #20 on the next night. Yes, that’s a big drop, but it did still make the top twenty. And yes, that’s me making excuses.
The weather was perfectly moody for my trip to the theater on Saturday to catch the Woman in Black. It was as if the TV movie gods were beckoning the same gloomy atmosphere from the 1989 version, and I was pleased as we drove down the long winding roads to the most remote theater in the world. I have said this before, I tend to hate most remakes, but love the idea of a small screen film getting a chance to play with the big boys. So many TVMs are legitimately obscure and deserve a chance to get a little notice. As far as I know, the 1989 version was pretty popular in England but did not fare as well here in the States, where it remains more elusive. It’s still built up a pretty good reputation, thanks to TVM nuts like me who keep spreading the word on our favorite small screen classics. As far as that version goes, it’s a pretty perfect little exercise in atmosphere and tragedy. I figured the new theatrical reboot might Hollywoodize the whole endeavor a bit, but I was ready for a little mainstream injection if it meant some attention would come to the original. As it would turn out, the remake would surpass any hopes I had for it, and I have to say, I simply adored the new Woman in Black.
Again, I’m at a crossroads. I don’t want to say too much because I went into the movie blind (well, I did rewatch the original, but I surpassed any opportunity I had to look into the new one aside from the trailer), and I think the less you know about it, the more fun you will have. Here’s what I will say:
Daniel Radcliffe was perfectly cast as the tragic lead. His sad eyes conveyed so much feeling that dialog was almost not needed. And indeed, he carried the film gracefully just on those emotions.
Much of the film has stayed the same, although there are also several noticeable differences. You will see what I mean when you see it. I think some of the choices they made were fantastic. There was one moment where I said, “Really?!?” but they took what I thought would be something silly and made it work.
The original and this version ooze atmosphere. There are marshes, fog and that creepy Eel Marsh House to keep the goosebumps raised. The set design is amazing and if creepy dolls are your thing, you will not be disappointed.
I loved this movie.
It turns out the new Woman in Black exceeded most expectations and pulled in a good turn at the box office. I hope this encourages the studios to start looking at the small screen for a little creepy inspiration. And I hope everyone tries to get their creep-on in the theater.
I have waited a long time for the release of the remake of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. Like with most re-imaginings I wondered if there was a point, and then I tried to keep tabs on how it was progressing, while checking out teaser trailers and whatever else I could find. I finally decided the remake had fallen into the right hands and I pulled back, trying not to get too much more information. I know I go from hot to cold, but the cold is still kind of hot. What a complicated creature I’ve become.
Anyway, I was finally able to see what I had hoped for and confront what I was afraid of this Friday when I went to catch the remake. Was it worth the wait? Kinda.
Dark is never a bad film, but it’s by no means great either. It has a lot of wonderful stuff, including an incredible house and some really suspenseful set-pieces. It also holds onto many of the things from the original that I love so much, including the ending. It’s different, but also very much the same, and that pleased me. However, the build-up doesn’t amount to the great sucker-punch of the 1973 version. Considering how quickly and cheaply the original was put together, it’s a true testament to how a potentially good film can reach a sort of greatness when placed in the right hands.
That said, I think young people who have no connection to the original will enjoy this reboot. I’m not sure why it’s rated R, but I do think if there are non-jaded tweens in the world (that’s doubtful, I know) they will get a kick out of the modern shenanigans.
I’ve seen fans of the original divided between enjoyment and complete disdain, so I find it a hard film to recommend. But I can say I had a lot of fun and got a thrill out of seeing “Teleplay by Nigel McKeand” in the opening credits! Bravo Nigel! If anything else, the classic version got some respect and for our troubles, we got a new film made by people who loved the original. And it shows.
By the way, it’s worth catching in the theater just to see the lush new trailer for The Woman in Black. Goosebumps, guys. Goose-bumps!
Those are the lovely sounds I make when I think of most remakes. I have never been shy about my disdain for our re-boot culture and I tend to dislike all the horror re-imagining that is so popular these days. Of course, a few come down the pike that make you think maybe someone was actually thinking about the film (Dawn of the Dead, I’m looking at you), so I know it’s not impossible for a remake to be good… it’s only unlikely.
Yet, despite all that negative energy (which is so un-70s of me), I find that I enjoy the world of TV movie remakes. OK, so it’s a much smaller planet, with very few features inhabiting its orbit, but I have thus far enjoyed the bulk of the films which have found new life through their re-imagining. Like, I know Satan’s School for Girls 2000 is in no way better than the original, but it’s a pretty fun little flick, as was the Initiation of Sarah reboot from 2006. What I like best about these films is that they come from truly legitimate obscurities and shine a light on originals that might otherwise only be a part of the ultra-cool lexicon of the ultra-cool TV movie fan. So maybe 1973’s Satan’s School for Girls won’t touch a nerve with young girls of today, but the Charmed friendly updo (complete with casting Shannen Doherty in the lead) certainly strokes our inner wiccan.
Now TVMs are getting remade in a big way. Two films are due out, The Woman in Black will (hopefully) get a release date soon and Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is gearing up for a major theatrical run starting August 26th. Despite my apprehensions about Katie Holmes (and really, that’s only elicits the slightest of hesitations… Go rocked!), I have high hopes that Dark will be a great piece of horror filmmaking, and inevitably some eyes will turn to the original. The thing about the first film is that it stands in a certain place and time. It’s still a classic and it's sure to garner new fans, but how could it be as popular as, say, oh, Ladykillers which is replete with nubile male strippers and the blonde Tina Turner wig?
What? You say male strippers aren’t that popular anymore?!? Where have I been? Oh, I know... 1986. It's good here.
When Lance from Kindertrauma suggested we compose a list of potentially great TVM remakes I instantly pulled some titles off the table. The big classics such as Duel, Dark Night of the Scarecrow and Bad Ronald seem untouchable to me. Is Bad Ronald perfect? No. But I can’t imagine any one other than Scott Jacoby filling those creepy shoes. While it’s not always the case, I believe most remakes should come from a mostly unseen source. The films should have good bones but lack a certain oomph that takes it to classic status. I know not everyone feels that way, but it’s how I roll. Lance offers some strong arguments though, and everyone should check out his fantastic list.
OK, so here’s where we are… By and large I normally detest remakes unless they are made from TV movies (preferably obscure). There are certainly plenty of films to choose from, and the list I compiled came from metaphorically pulling names from a hat (i.e. I made a random list and chose whatever titles made me say, “Oh, OK!”). Here is the unsystematic list I put together of ten films I think are worthy of throwing a few of the big Hollywood bucks at:
Do Not Fold, Spindle or Mutilate (1971): I teetered on adding this one to the list because the original is so wonderful as it is. The four leads: Helen Hayes, Myrna Loy, Mildred Natwick and Sylvia Sydney are perfect in their parts as elderly women who jokingly create the perfect woman for a computer dating service. The idea is that the correspondence from potential male suitors might liven things up for these fiery old ladies, but instead they lure a psycho (Vince Edwards) into their lives. He is determined to meet his dream girl any way possible. The story is fun and original, but what really makes Mutilate such a great film are the pre-Golden Girls ladies who refuse to kowtow to stereotyping. They drink, have a wicked sense of humor, and enjoy living their lives to the fullest. In today’s society we see too many women fighting the age clock with every superficial weapon possible, instead of embracing their lives as fulfilled, experienced (sometimes wrinkled), and most importantly, vital people in the world. I think if someone could manage to hire actresses more interested in accepting their age rather than hiding from it, we could have a friggin’ revolution on our hands! OK, maybe not a revolution, but would someone please call Judi Dench, please… I have a movie idea for her! (Click on title for review)
Crawlspace (1972): I’ve been thinking a lot about this film which stars Arthur Kennedy and Theresa Wright as a retired and childless couple who allow the bug-eyed Richard (Tom Happer) into their house. At first Richard just wants to hang out in the crawlspace in their basement, and while no one is quite sure why he’s so off his rocker, the sweet couple believes they can bring him back to society with a little parental love. Of course the whole thing backfires and we come to learn that inherent distrust isn’t always a bad thing. Directed by the John Newland who also helmed the original Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Crawlspace (both the film and novel) focuses on how some disconnect with civilization, and why some people will never stop reaching out those self imposed loners. While we like to think of ourselves as an iPhone culture, knee deep in social networking, some of us find that we are farther from society than ever before. There’s something here in Crawlspace that could easy transcend to contemporary culture, and it could be as equally moving if done correctly. (Click on title for review)
Madame Sin (1972):Madame Sinshould be a well known film. Let’s look at the cast; we’ve got Robert Wagner as a James Bond type and Bette Davis as an Asian (!) evil super force! She kidnaps Wagner and holds him hostage in her Scottish (!!) castle in the hopes she can use him to steal a Polaris submarine…!!! Holy cow!!! What is this? This lush and engaging spy thriller was directed and co-written by David Greene with such a sure hand you start to buy the crazy plot. The main reason I’d like to see this remade is because then we might get a DVD of this sadly overlooked and charming oddity.
Where Have all the People Gone? (1974): Hey baby, it’s the year of the rapture and the apocalypse is coming! Why not celebrate with a film featuring the disappearance of 90% of the people in earth? Peter Graves starred in this excellent slow burn of a film that relied more on mood than overt terror. While I appreciated the (mostly) off screen dog attacks, imagine what could be done now? Also, it’s a timely issue, since we are in a non-stop argument over the environment and our place in it. Watch nature take its course in what could be an absolutely brutal retelling. (Click on title for review)
She’s Dressed to Kill (1979): Want to remake a slasher? Try this rarity featuring beautiful models stranded in a large mansion on top of a secluded mountain. The setting and atmosphere of Dressed is full of creepy ambiance. It’s also a relatively unknown slasher that screams glamour and begs for an update. In modern horror, films tend to want to encourage antagonistic female relationships, so why not put them in a situation where being hostile is part of its charm? And the clothes, oh the clothes... Where's Travilla when you need him?
This House Possessed (1981): Whoa, wha-? I don’t want certain films like Duel or The Night Stalker touched, but I’m OK with my all time favorite made for TV movie hitting the re-chopping block? Yes, sir. As much as I love Possessed (and trust me, I love it), I wouldn’t mind seeing it redone on an epic scale. The house hauntings are orchestrated through modern equipment and I love the idea of the vast gadgetry that could wreak vengeance on the protagonists. All I ask is that someone give Parker Stevenson the role of the music manager (originally played by Slim Pickens). Throw a cowboy hat on my main crush and give him a slightly earthy southern accent and I’ll be at every screening of the film! (Click on title for review and read another review here)
Desperate Lives (1982): OK, so I see this movie as the Reefer Madness of the 80s, and remember how that one got a re-do as a musical? Picture it - a little dance number while a girl has a giant drug freak out before she jumps through a window. That’s good stuff! What makes Desperate Lives work (and yes, it does work in an overwrought fashion) is that it’s so earnest in its message, but so overt in its direction. It is completely misguided and ridiculously fun - all it's missing is a good beat I can dance to!
I, Desire (1982): While we’re living in a modern world replete with emo-vampires, I think it’s about time to resurrect this sexy little thriller and put the campy back in vampy! The anti-Twilight crowd says they want something edgy, and this might make a good compromise. Desire isn’t the deepest film ever made, but it does have feature a vampire doubling as a prostitute, so there’s your edge. It would be really fun to get knee deep in a little vampire sleaze and take away that clean cut image they have been getting. (Click on title for review)
Deadly Lessons (1983): Although I didn’t get a chance to see it until much later, I remember when Deadly Lessons first aired. I was desperate for a slasher film that might be less gruesome than the more popular output (by the way, I was a chicken shit when I was a kid). This film looked destined to be the chance I had to experience some fun stalk and hopefully a little toned down slash, but for whatever reason, the film escaped me until I was an adult. Unfortunately, by then I could handle a lot more gore and looked to Lessons as more of a kitschy addition to the gene. It is also unfortunate that Lessons isn’t either scary or cheesy. It’s not horrible, but it’s not great either. I love the setting and I even enjoyed the killer’s reveal, so there’s much here to work with and I’d like to see this get the royal slasher redux treatment.
Velvet (1984): Seriously, this pilot movie about a band of female agents who work undercover as aerobics instructors is just gold waiting for pick up! It’s sort of like an unabashed Charlie’s Angels rip with more leotards. One agent even has a lipstick tube which doubles as a bomb detonator. Sorry, this pilot movie needs to be remade, perhaps is should still take place in the 80s, embracing every neon-tipped stereotype it can handle. And don't touch that awesome theme song... OK, it's awesomely bad, but still...
I whittled down this list from a couple of dozen titles. Far be it from me to say this is the end all, be all... Do you think there is a title that should be on this list?
When I first started this blog (almost 400 posts ago!), I had intended to cover mostly made for TV horror. Very early on I threw out that idea when I knew I wanted to write about Sooner or Later, and that was, like, four posts in! Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was one of those movies I thought I’d be writing about over and over again. Turns out I have only mentioned it more or less in passing or in relation to the upcoming remake. When I tried to think long and hard about why, I got a bad headache (cuz thinking like that is hard), but I also realized that classics like Dark get written about a lot. I think I was just unsure if I could add anything new to the pot.
All I should have said was I remember watching Dark when I was still living in California, I must have been six years old or younger. I recall being so terrified by the opening credits I changed the channel the first time I tried to watch it. The second time, I think I purposely stepped in closer to the end, and that scared the bejeezus out of me too, and I remember watching The Monkees directly afterwards in an attempt to cleanse the palette (I think it worked). Finally, I caught the whole film, but it was after we had moved to Vegas and I was a little older, but still quite shy of ten. I was pretty enchanted by those little demons that wanted to drag Sally (Kim Darby) to the depths of hell. Their malicious whispers and diminutive and creepy presence was the stuff horror legends are made of and I have wanted to brick over every fireplace since.
In a few days the remake of Dark, which producer/co-writer Guillermo Del Toro refers to as the scariest TV movie he has ever seen, gets a new life. It’s pretty amazing to watch the genesis of this little TVM that could, it was first considered a throwaway horror film, only to become a cult hit and then a classic of the genre worthy of a mega budget redux. I get a little tear in my eye whenever I think about it. Or maybe I just bit my tongue. Either way, I’m over the moon about this new version and as I travel the interwebs looking at various articles about the film, I am thrilled to see all the comments from people who have intense memories of Dark from their childhood. This is it, guys. Those of us who love TV movies can say “We’ve arrived!” It’s pretty exciting, so I thought I’d dedicate the next week to Dark. It won’t be a daily thing, but please check back as Made for TV Mayhem takes a look back at one of the biggest influences on the blog.
And if you really do want to get a little metaphorical with Dark, please read the following articles:
This is pretty old hat by now, but Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) has been cast to star in Hammer’s remake of The Woman in Black! Very cool news indeed. Although I find him a bit too young, I think this is going to be an interesting re-visioning of what I consider a classic in small screen horror. However, I’m reserving some trepidations regarding the decision to film the remake in 3D. Aside from one harrowing scene in the film, I can’t imagine that such a cerebral work needs any fancy technical trickery. Can’t help it, it makes me fear for the worst.
However, Filmstalker wrote a really interesting article on the people who will be behind the camera, and although the writer of this article is anti-3D in general he’s gives a lot of positive info on the filmmakers and their track record. This is another film I am anticipating if only because I’m so totally curious as to how they’ll pull it off.
Fans of the Woman in Black are probably aware it was a novel by Susan Hill and a stage play before it was a British TVM. Someone uploaded a performance of the play and you can watch a clip below and then just follow the links for more! Enjoy!
