Recommend a movie

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm also keen to revisit Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd in the very near future.

Burton's Sleepy Hollow is essential autumn viewing for me. It's a flawed film for sure, and not a faithful adaptation of Washington Irving's story, but it's the last Burton movie I truly loved. In many ways, it's his darkest film. There's a lot of anger in it (even the Widow Winship's unborn baby and the Killian child get murdered!), and I attribute that to Burton's creative frustration over the cancellation of Superman Lives. It's got the best cinematography and art direction of any of his movies, and I find it to be his most frightening, intense and atmospheric picture. It's also full of nods to Universal Horror, Hammer Horror, Mario Bava and Roger Corman movies, resulting in a captivating experience for film buffs. The dark expressionistic atmosphere, violent action scenes and spooky detective narrative make it a worthy companion piece for the Burtonverse Batman movies.

To my mind, Sleepy Hollow marks the end of Burton's prime era. His output was never as good after that.

[thecolorsblend]

not a faithful adaptation of Washington Irving's story

I'm not sure if the film is better for that or not.

I mean, the good is obviously (and unassailably) good. The cast is top notch and I rather enjoy the film as a horror-themed detective story period piece. It's strange for one film to wear so many hats. But Burton does it seemingly effortlessly.

Still, I have such a soft spot for Irving's novel. It's important to American literature inasmuch as there was very little truly noteworthy American literature up to that point in history. As an early classic of American literature, I've always wanted to see the novel done justice on film.

And Burton's film makes very little effort to achieve that. The film is great unto itself. But my affection for Irving's novel runs deep and I do wish that a more faithful live action version could be someday be made.

Mind you, I don't know that I trust Hollywood with that right now. Maybe in a year or three judging by the way certain things seem to be changing. But not now.

[Silver Nemesis]

I wrote a piece of coursework on Irving's story for an American literature module I took when I was a student. The central theme was how the tale functions as both a ghost story and a comedy. In both genres the author manipulates the reader into expecting one thing, and then hits them with a payoff that surprises them by evoking either laughter or fear. Irving manages to do both in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. A similar feat can be found in 'The Open Window' by Saki, another ghost story which is creepily effective right up until the end, where Saki throws in a twist that turns the whole thing into a joke.

There are lots of great lines in Irving's original story. One of my favourites is:

Truth to say, he was a conscientious man, and ever bore in mind the golden maxim, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Ichabod Crane's scholars certainly were not spoiled.

I don't think the wit of Irving's prose has ever fully translated into any of the screen adaptations. The animated Disney film is largely faithful to the story, with the obvious caveat that they added songs. As far as live action adaptations go, the most faithful is certainly the 1999 Canadian TV movie starring Brent Carver as Ichabod Crane. This came out the same year as Burton's film. It takes one or two liberties in padding out the plot to make it fit the feature length runtime, but it's true to the spirit and tone of Irving's tale and even adapts the framing device of Diedrich Knickerbocker transcribing the story as he hears it from the locals. The whole film is available to watch free on YouTube.

My take on Burton's version is that it's inspired by the legend of Sleepy Hollow. So imagine if all of the folklore and superstition underpinning the original story was true. Burton's movie is a celebration of those myths, presenting us with a fairytale nightmare in which every terrifying flight of the imagination is actualised. Burton's version of the story is the type of tale the guests might have shared around the fire during the Halloween party at the Van Tassel estate. It's less an adaptation of Irving's story than a reinterpretation of the underlying mythology.

Mind you, I don't know that I trust Hollywood with that right now. Maybe in a year or three judging by the way certain things seem to be changing. But not now.

Here's my pitch for a 'diverse and inclusive' reboot catering to 'modern audiences' in 2024.

Ichabod Crane is a black schoolmaster who moves to the town of Sleepy Hollow, where his arrival is met by racism from the privileged white locals. He soon learns about a slave who was decapitated by a racist mob after attempting to escape on horseback and now haunts the local woods seeking racial justice by claiming the heads of the white men who murdered him.

Crane also meets Katrina Van Tassel, a pansexual mixed-race Latina girlboss who is trying to overthrow her patriarchal white father so she can become manager of the family estate and make amends for the social injustices her family has inflicted on slaves and indigenous people. Katrina helps the heroic Headless Horseman kill the racists who murdered him, while simultaneously fending off the advances of the toxic straight white man Brom Bones.

Ultimately Katrina rejects both Ichabod and Brom when she realises she's a strong independent woman who doesn't need a man, and Brom gets arrested for cultural appropriation after he impersonates the Headless Horseman.

RT critic score: 95%
RT user score: 13%

Budget: $150 million
Box office: £13.5 million

I wouldn't put it past modern Hollywood to produce something this terrible.

[The Laughing Fish]

I watched Late Night With the Devil on Netflix. It's set in the Seventies about a late night talk show host who is struggling with the death of his wife and trying to boost ratings for his failing show that he interviews a girl possessed by a demon on live television. The period piece was done extremely well as were the old school-style special effects, and the pacing flows quickly. What makes the film effective is it's presented as a recording of the talk show and displays the episode unraveling into chaos, with the behind-the-scenes drama unfolding in black and white. Very well acted despite a largely unknown cast and great narration by Michael Ironside chronicling the TV host's rise to fame before the infamous episode.

It's better than a lot of horror movies nowadays. Highly recommended.

[thecolorsblend]

Not a single movie so much as a single playwright. But I've spent the last month or so watching a bunch of Shakespeare films. And I've really been digging them too.

• Julius Caesar (1953, with Marlon Brando as Mark Antony)
• Hamlet (1990, starring Mel Gibson)
• Romeo + Juliet (1996, with Leo and Danes)
• 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)
• Hamlet (2000, starring Ethan Hawke)
• Great Performances: Macbeth (2011, starring Patrick Stewart)
• Macbeth (2015, starring Michael Fassbender)

It's been a very enjoyable experience watching them. One striking thing is how differently directors and actors interpret the same material. There are two Hamlet productions above and also two Macbeth productions. They're quite different from each other even tho they're ostensibly adapting the same play.

Since I'm a nerd, I have to make things more complicated than they need to be. So, in my imagination, Romeo + Juliet (1996), Hamlet (2000) and Great Performances: Macbeth (2011) all take place within the same shared cinematic universe. Not because they need to or because Shakespeare intended such a thing. I just like the idea of them existing in the same continuity with one another. They all occur in recent/contemporary eras, two of them occur in the US and they all use Shakespeare's original lines. So, it's not a total stretch on my part.

Anyway, so, if you're looking for a change of pace, I've REALLY enjoyed the above films.

[The Laughing Fish]

I rewatched Dredd for the first time in years. I'm happy to say it still holds up. It may be a simple plot and Judge Dredd himself lacks character development compared to Judge Anderson, but it's very good action indie film nonetheless. Karl Urban's gruffness is perfectly suited in this role, and the Slo-Mo drug taking special effects are very artistic. Seeing as Alex Garland wrote the script, those moments remind of these trippy visual styles in Annihilation and Devs. Still Ma-Ma isn't the most sophisticated villain in the world, but her brutality as a drug lord is effective enough. Much better Judge Dredd film than the 1995 Stallone original, although I still enjoy the latter for a good laugh.