#25. Poltergeist II, #26. Poltergeist III

PoltergeistNot being a devoted fan of Tobe Hooper’s 1982 horror classic Poltergeist, I was reluctant to visit both of the film’s sequels. I knew little of Poltergeist II or III, and had even less interest in them. Well, my disinclination has once again deprived me of great pleasure, at least partially.Poltergeist III

Poltergeist II poster

Poltergeist II, directed by Brian Gibson in 1986, was not only a devilishly entertaining film, but also far superior to its predecessor. The family has done their best to move on after the horrific events of the first film. Forced to move in with grandma and mounting financial woes, the Freelings have bigger problems than ghostly apparitions taking over the television set. That is of course until Reverend Kane comes knocking on their front door. Let me just say right now Kane is as menacing a character as any put to screen. If I had seen this film in the 80s my young mind would have been forever damaged. Played by the gaunt Julian Beck, Kane is a door-to-door salesman of nightmares. Preying on the young Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke) to join his demonic congregation, the Freelings recruit the assistance of Native American Taylor (Will Sampson) and franchise staple Tangine Barrons (Zelda Rubinstein) to try and save the young girl. What follows are some brilliant scares and really original set pieces I was surprised are not in the horror pantheon. This is a must see for both hardcore genre fans and those of you that just watch horror films during Halloween. Poltergeist II is now a staple as far as I am concerned.

Reverend Kane (Julian Beck)So, coming off the high of II I eagerly dove head first into Poltergeist III expecting entertainment along the same lines. Instead all I got was disappointment. If Poltergeist II is the Empire Strikes Back of the series, then Poltergeist III is its Weekend at Bernie’s II. Cheese machine Tom Skerrit, who I usually like, replaces Craig T. “the Coach” Nelson as the lead male when sweet little Carol Anne goes to stay with her uncle and his family for a while. This is one of those sequels that has a severe case of the “for some reasons,” like for some reason her relatives live in the penthouse of a corporate owned skyscraper, which Skerrit’s character also manages, and for some reason Carol Anne has completely forgot everything that happened to her in the previous two films, but for some reason she is forced to see a child psychologist… and so on and so on until people start to die and predictability takes over. Unfortunately they recast the part of Reverend Kane, and actor Nathan Davis just couldn’t match the creepy brilliance that was Julian Beck. With pathetic direction and lazy screenwriting, Poltergeist III was an all out disappointment. It isn’t even so bad its good, just uninspired and trite. Keep away . . .

Oh yeah, and this happened: Tom Skerrit in Poltergeist III

I'm honestly on the fence on how I feel about the Poltergeist III trailer. Is it awful or awesome? Let me know.

#23. Richard Pryor Live on the Sunset Strip, #24. Kevin Hart: I'm a Grown Little Man

Richard PryorFirst start off with some old funny, and then bring it home with some new funny. I have seen this particular Richard Pryor stand-up special at least two-dozen times, and it never fails to make me laugh. Surviving the fire really seemed to put his life, and his comedy in a new perspective. He was always daringly honest, but with this special he seemed like he needed to confess his sins or something. I am not sure, but anyone who loves their comedy raw and sincere (and really dirty) then this is a must.

Kevin Hart

After I finished with Sunset Strip I figured I would give some new blood a chance. I have seen one or two of Kevin Hart's specials, at least bits and pieces, so I kind of knew what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised. Unlike Pryor, who found humor in his life and his pain, Hart is a pure joke teller. He has some pretty great bits, particularly his obsession with his own masculinity , and I was laughing throughout the show. Some jokes went on a little too long, but I would check out some of his other specials now that I have finally given him a chance.

If you have watched either of these specials, or just want to talk comedy, leave any comments below. 

Stop Motion Mario

#21. Victoria & Albert, #22. The Young Victoria

The Young Victoria 2009While some docudramas have as much production value and spectacle as the book on tape version of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, many showcase a moment in history capable of acquiring audience interest. Of course this interest is subjective, so how many viewers fall asleep during the BBC’s 2001 docudrama Victoria & Albert is, in a way, independent of the film itself. Even a great book chronicling the romance between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert is still a book detailing the courtship of 19^th century English royalty. Forgoing the artistic license granted to feature films, it is an accurate chronicling of history that a true docudrama is concerned. Does that mean Victoria & Albert is a more faithful recount of that moment in time than the feature length film The Young Victoria (2009) that tells the same story?

To answer that question it is important to define the term “docudrama,” especially compared to a documentary or feature. An amalgam of narrative films and classical documentaries, docudramas have several specific characteristics. The typical docudrama “sticks to the facts as they are known… The goal is to give basic information, allowing them (the viewer) to draw their own conclusions.” (WiseGeek.com) Unlike documentaries, which often include varying degrees of agenda, be it personal commentary from the director or a flat out persuasive intent, docudramas are only here to present actuality. Take it or leave it.

More recreation than inspiration, docudramas lack the pageantry of most mainstream feature films. Opposing the basic design of cinema, docudramas are more concerned with information than entertainment, however, that is not to say they do not strive for dramatic effect. “Docudramas do not integrate fictional elements… remaining true to the events they document as much as possible… they can make historical events feel more accessible.” (WiseGeek.com)

That being said, when comparing a docudrama to a feature film, each presenting a version of a historical and well-known event, which form is more accurate? Or even more to the point, which is more engaging? No matter how factual any version of a story may be, if does not somehow engage the viewer and maintain a grasp on his or her attention, than its accuracy is irrelevant. Luckily for this spectator, Victoria & Albert surprisingly kept me rapt, engrossed by not only the natural allure of Queen Victoria’s fascinating life, but also the charm of the titular couple’s relationship. Likewise, The Young Victoria competently demonstrated the young queen’s development, but with an obvious budget that elevated the proceedings seen in Victoria & Albert far above mere made-for-television reenactments. Victoria & Albert 2001The pomp and circumstance shimmers throughout the feature, perhaps an obvious compensation for the inaccuracies only devoted historians of the period. And there in lies the danger. Where it is safe to assume that the events showcased in the BBC docudrama are faithful and true-to-life, trusting a filmmaker who in the end must always account for profit, like those of feature length films, historical accuracy must often times be manipulated for narrative consideration.

For instance, when discussing The Young Victoria on BBC 4 radio show Film Programme, writer Julian Fellowes admitted to the fact that Prince Albert never took a bullet for Victoria. A fictional concoction for pure spectacle’s sake, Fellowes crafted the exciting moment to further convince the audience of the newlywed’s bravery and integrity. Not only does this revelation disappoint on an emotional level (who doesn’t love a martyr for love?), but also forces the viewer on an academic level to question every event depicted throughout the picture. This confidence is mandatory for a director/spectator relationship, credence necessary for any enjoyment to be had when experiencing a historical portrayal on film.

Film can and should be considered an educational medium, but there are limitations that must always be considered when basing what is fact off of what is on screen. For a mainstream film like The Young Victoria, producing a product entertaining enough to sell tickets comes before telling a factual story. It may give viewers a good impression of an event or of a time and place, but should never be believed to be completely genuine. 

Smith, S.E. "What is a Docudrama." WiseGeek. WiseGeek, n.d. Web. 9 Nov 2011.

<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-docudrama.htm>.

Nostalgia Watch: Evolution of Video Game Animation

Created By ColourLovers.com