Danny Peary Interview: From the Silver Screen to our National Pastime

An Interview with Danny Peary: 

From the Silver Screen to our National Pastime

By Jerry Saravia 

Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

Danny Peary - The Cult Movies author himself

Being a pre-teen in the early 1980’s, I regarded cinema as pure escapism. Discovering Universal 

Monster Movies such as “Dracula” with Bela Lugosi and any of the “Frankenstein” and “The Wolf Man”  pictures from the 1930s and ‘40s on PBS was about as adventurous as a preliminary filmgoer as I got. At the public library, I discovered “Cult Movies,” written in 1981 by Danny Peary (along with J. 
Hoberman’s “Midnight Movies”), and suddenly my cinematic landscape not only opened, it pretty 
much burst at the seams. There were Peary’s long, opinionated essays on mainstream and classic films, 
such as “Enter the Dragon” and “Rio Bravo,” but there was also David Lynch’s signature debut film 
“Eraserhead” (a mind-opening reality that will literally shake your world), Hal Ashby’s brilliantly crude and equally humanistic “Harold and Maude,” John Waters’ champion of bad taste “Pink Flamingos,” 
and Werner Herzog’s “Aguirre, The Wrath of God”and other oddities that pissed off my father (which 
was a sign of my rebellion). Peary’s three “Cult Movies” volumes (the first volume is now celebrating its 35th anniversary) elicited readers’ curiosity about films that challenged and broke the rules, 
and took us along as he explored something deeper within the crevices that made them different and 
appealing. Peary wrote about these films with such passion and cunning attention to detail that it made 
me think I could possibly write a critique about films as well. He opened a whole world I had slowly but surely discovered. Frankly, had it not been for him, I doubt that my whole family would have watched “Eraserhead” and contemplated its meaning and obscenely nightmarish images.

And for all his books on “Cult Movies” (including“-Cult Movie Stars”), in addition, he wrote “Guide 
for the Film Fanatic” (which has reviews of over 1650 films) and “Alternate Oscars” which has 
Peary’s yearly alternate Oscar choices for films from 1927 through 1991. Peary has also focused on 
another subject of appreciation: sports, especially a love for baseball. A noted baseball historian, 
Peary is the writer-researcher on the long-running national sports interview television program “The 
Tim McCarver Show,” and also has written three books with McCarver. Peary also collaborated 
with baseball Hall of Famer Ralph Kiner on his autobiography, “Baseball Forever,” and co-wrote 
“Roger Maris: Baseball’s Reluctant Hero” and “Gil Hodges: The Brooklyn Bums, The Miracle Mets and the Extraordinary Life of a Baseball Legend.” Most recent collaborations include working with Shannon Miller, an Olympic gold medalist and cancer survivor, on her memoir, “It’s Not About Perfect.” His newest book is “Jackie Robinson in Quotes: The Remarkable Life of Baseball’s Most Significant Player” featuring 3,000 quotes either about Robinson or by Robinson. So prepare to discover not only about Peary’s love for the silver screen but also for those bright shining stars from our national pastime.

1.) The Cult Movies Books have been major inspirations for me personally. I have seen many of the 
films you shared your thoughts on, some of which are my favorite films of all time. What essentially 
makes a film cult-ish because you have mentioned that they are not necessarily box-office hits but 
rather films that are beyond the norm or the mainstream? 

Danny Peary: "Over time there have been non-Hollywood filmmakers, mostly outside of the U.S. but independent writer-directors (from John Cassavetes to Ed Wood), who intentionally made movies that were so different (out-of-the-mainstream) and/or personal and/or controversial that cult status, rather than box office success, was the most one could hope for. But in truth, with very few exceptions, nobody 
sets out to make a “cult movie.” By now we can recognize instantly that some out-the-mainstream 
films will become “cult movies”--we can say “that film has the “look” of a cult movie--but we never 
can be sure which films will disappear over time and which will be embraced by a rabid following and 
kept in circulation and as part of our movie discussion, essential viewing for film fanatics. And with 
these films, it doesn’t matter if they were initially mainstream films--certainly “Casablanca,” “Rebel 
Without a Cause,” “The Quiet Man,” “Sunset Boulevard,” “Some Like It Hot,” “Psycho” and even 
“The Wizard of Oz”-were originally made for the mass audience, but now enjoy the cult status of 
midnight movies like “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” “Eraserhead,” “El Topo,” “The Harder They 
Come,” and the current “The Room.” What unites all these movies I personally have called cult movies is that their fans see them repeatedly wherever they play and have the need to spread the word about them--whatever their genres, these are the films that can be written and talked about in relation to their fans. There is a communal element." 

2.) Why did you specifically choose Cult Movies as a basis for three books plus a book on Cult Movie 
Stars? 

D.P: "Many of the films I wrote about were personal favorites, including those that I have seen countless times since I was a kid - “The Searchers,” “Rebel Without a Cause,” “Land of the Pharaohs,” “Tarzan and His Mate,” “King Kong,” “Psycho.” I was part of their cults. But even those films I wasn’t crazy about I felt were important to other people and significant in movie history. I was also curious about exploring the midnight movie phenomenon of the time. My advantage as a critic was that I grew up loving all kinds of movies, from low budget noir and horror/sf films to silent and foreign films to highbrow critical favorites like “Citizen Kane,” so I could write about all kinds of movies with equal respect and expertise.  I wanted to bring a seemingly diverse group of into one book and show their connection (their rabid followings). I guess my contribution was creating a new genre: Cult Movies." 

2a.) What would you classify as a cult movie now? In the last twenty years? 

D.P: The biggest change is that while filmmakers still don’t intend to make cult movies, independent 
filmmakers who submit their films to festivals are desperate for word-of-mouth and are so delighted 
when their films achieve any kind of cult status. 

3.) Any cult films you would’ve loved to have critiqued in a new volume, given the opportunity? 

D.P: "I am thinking Robert Altman’s often overlooked “Brewster McCloud.” I burnt out on writing essays on movies after “Guide for the Film Fanatic” and “Alternate Oscars” so I no longer have the urge to share my feelings about any particular films (though of course I still always tell younger film fans and filmmakers what movies I suggest they see), although I wish there were already-written chapters out there on such films as “The Big Lebowski,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Dirty Harry,” “Fight Club,” and many horror films. I am curious what I would have written."

4.) Are there any cult films you were dismissive of, such as “A Clockwork Orange,” that you feel differently about now? 

D.P: "I am not dismissive of it, I think it’s an important film and urge everyone to see it. But as a big Kubrick fan, I just have problems with it, as I do with “The Shining,” which has a huge cult following."

5.) Why did you stop writing “Cult Movie” books? 

D.P: "As I wrote above, I burnt out writing about movies and felt I was starting to repeat myself when I did “Alternate Oscars” because I was giving my awards to movies that I’d already written long essays about in the Cult Movies series. I also felt the movie world changed and I would no longer be helping people discover movies (I think a sense of discovery is essential for a movie to achieve cult status) but 
just writing about films they already saw. I also feel frustrated with new generations of so-called 
cinephiles and even critics who refuse to see any pre-1990 movies. That’s why I am very pleased 
Workman Publishing assembled 3 e-book volumes taking about 100 chapters from my cult movie 
books. I would like young moviegoers who never bought my books to seek out the Midnight Movies, 
Crime Movies, and Horror Movies ebooks."

6.) How did you first get involved as writer-researcher on the television interview show, “The Tim 
McCarver Show”? 

D.P: "My childhood passions were movies, sports, television, and rock ‘n’ roll, so I’m lucky to have written about all of them. Tim McCarver and I are sharing our 30th anniversary of working together. We were represented by the same broadcast agency and started working together in 1986 when he was the analyst on the New York Mets, initially collaborating on a daily radio commentary show. And we stayed together doing various projects including our first two books together in the late 1990s, “Tim 
McCarver’s Baseball for Brain Surgeons and Other Fans” and “The Perfect Season.” Then we did a 
radio interview show that in the early 2000s evolved into the TV sports interview show that still exists 
today. I write the scripts and provide him with the research so he can come up with questions for the 
guests. Our third book together, “Tim McCarver’s Diamond Gems,” takes excerpts from interviews 
with baseball guests over the years, from Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax, and Hank Aaron, to Derek 
Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and more current players. So I live in two worlds--sports and movies (although I 
don’t write essays I still do Q&A’s with movie talent for FilmInk (Aus) and “Danny Peary on Film” at Sag Harbor Express Online.)"

7.) You have written several books on baseball and I am wondering what it is about baseball that fascinates you, particularly as a baseball historian. 

D.P: "That’s too difficult a question to answer but I can say that movies and baseball in particular made my youth so much fun. There was always a thrill watching a movie or a game or opening a pack of baseball cards. My childhood baseball idol Vic Power was outside of my family the most important person of my youth. (And I’m still astonished that I met him when I was an adult when I decided to assemble a baseball book, “Cult Baseball Players,” that would allow me to approach him.) As a baseball fan/historian, just as I am as a movie fan/historian, I try to spread my enthusiasm to others and let everyone know that each game of baseball and its entire history is so much better the more you know about it. It all tells a great story." 

7a.) And what can we learn from your new book on Jackie Robinson, “Jackie Robinson in Quotes: 

The Remarkable Life of Baseball’s Most Significant Player”? 

D.P: "I assembled between 2,500 and 3,000 quotes either about Jackie Robinson or by Jackie Robinson, from books, interviews, speeches, columns, letters, college yearbooks, cereal boxes, baseball 
cards, and videos to take readers through his life chronologically (1919 to 1972) and onward to today 
when he is celebrated more than ever. I thought I knew everything before undertaking this enormous 
project, and I learned so much, so I have no doubt that readers will be surprised by what they read. 
One thing that surprised me was his tremendous fame as a football player at UCLA in 1939 and 1940. 
He was written about across the country in the New York Times. Yet we have always been told 
that when Dodgers president and general manager Branch Rickey signed him to be the first black in major league baseball in 1945 that he didn’t really know who Jackie was other than he starred in the Negro Leagues that year. It surprised me that Jackie did so well in the Negro Leagues with Kansas City after not having played baseball in five years! The big surprise to me was that Jackie didn’t die so young only because of the years of abuse he experienced as the majors’ first black ballplayer and diabetes, but equally because of what he went through after his career ended as a relentless crusader for social justice, integration leading to equal opportunity, elevated economic status, political clout, and first-class citizenship for all blacks in America. He was right there with Martin Luther King on the frontlines and his battle continued throughout his life - and it took a tremendous toll. Robinson is honored today for his contributions to baseball that led to social change, but exactly his role in the civil rights movement and why he is so relevant today is lost on many people. I hope this book will confirm what a remarkable person he was."

8.) I noticed that a documentary about the influence of your film books exists or is in development. Are 
you involved in this project? 

"I have never met the person doing this documentary, Brian Sauer, but he did a phone interview with 
me for a fanzine several years ago. He told me he was doing this project and I have provided him with 
contact information for a number of filmmakers who have said my books influenced their careers. 
He has interviewed a number of people on his own, which can be found online. He has been working 
on this for several years so I’m skeptical it will ever be done, but he insists it’s a work-in-progress. It’s 
flattering and a bit embarrassing at the same time. But it his HIS film, not mine."

It is worth anybody's time

 NOBODY (2021)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Nobody" is the latest in the no-brainer, extremely-bloody-fistfights-and-shootouts action movie genre, and I do mean that as a compliment to some extent. Forgive me if I have not seen very many action films in the last ten years (the "John Wick" franchise still remains unwatched by me) but I can't imagine too many are different from this one, except for the lead performance. What might have been mediocre action theatrics dialed up to 1,111 ends up a bit more elevated thanks to Bob Odenkirk. That is right, Bob Odenkirk, the seemingly mild-mannered, oddball actor from the similarly oddball and entertaining TV show "Better Call Saul." Nothing in that show screamed to me "ACTION HERO. FORMER ASSASSIN!" Yet here is he and he more than gives this movie a powerhouse punch in the gut. 

Odenkirk is your mild-mannered average man in suburbia. His name is Hutch and he has an average job as a construction office worker in his father-in-law's company. He takes the bus to work everyday, forgets to take out the trash every Wednesday, is married and has two children. Nothing out of the ordinary until their house is burglarized and, though Hutch is armed with a golf club, he doesn't use it and lets the burglars go with some cash and his daughter's favorite bracelet. Everyone from his family to his co-workers to even the police ask him why he didn't fight back and protect his son who was wrestling with one masked burglar. Hutch has his reasons but he is no nobody. It turns out he is a former deadly government assassin who chose to have a normal life. The backstory is somewhat interesting enough to wish there were more character details, but who has time for that when Hutch has to prove he is not a nobody.

As I said, "Nobody" seems to be headed in the character study direction at first, especially after finding those two masked burglars. Without divulging too much, Hutch is struck by guilt after discovering their plight (let's say the health care system gets a slight beating in this film). When riding a bus back home, some Russian thugs enter the bus and force all the passengers out, and Hutch decides to beat them and stab them! Lo and behold, one of them is the brother of a Russian karaoke singer and mob higher-up Yulian (Aleksey Serebryakov). This mobster is so impulsively violent that he thinks nothing of slicing a guy's neck open in front of everyone at a club! It at this point where I realized that character study is not this movie's motivation. Hutch practically shoots every single thug working for Yulian imaginable and in imaginative ways (love the use of the fire extinguisher) - Hutch is a one-man army. The switch in the narrative feels abrupt and all we can do is sit back and watch Hutch protect his family from these thugs. 

"Nobody" doesn't aim any higher than being a professional piece of giddy action movie sequences and shootouts galore (Director Ilya Naishuller does a bang-up job). Most of it works because nuanced Odenkirk is at the center of the action, and we believe what he's doing every step of the way since he does a good job of showing a relatively normal human being with an unbelievable past. The villains are a little over-the-top and Hutch's family (including the underused Connie Nielsen as his wife) don't resonate in the mind after the film is over.  At least Christopher Lloyd as Hutch's dad has a colorfully entertaining extended cameo. Still, for Bob Odenkirk, the kinetic action and some supporting roles, "Nobody" is definitely worth anybody's time.   

Harsh conditions for a Canadian Wilderness Family

THE SILENCE OF THE NORTH (1981)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I am a sucker for frontier life in the days of the 19th century or the early 20th century. You show me gorgeous scenery of the wilderness and a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, and I am hooked (something tells me that I might have been reincarnated from a frontiersman or farmer from that period). Films like "Heartland" come to mind immediately, and the beauty of such films is their depiction of the gritty, harsh realities of said living. "The Silence of the North" is another stirring, amazingly shot example. Though the story is curtailed a bit, it is never less than impressive in terms of characterization if not scope. 

Based on the true story of Olive Frederickson (played by Ellen Burstyn), Olive is a young woman taken in by Walter (Tom Skerritt), an ambitious if unreliable trapper who wants to settle down somewhere north in the Canadian wilderness. They marry, build a log cabin, and Olive consistently gets pregnant. Before long, after an inexpensive purchase of two sledding dogs and the hopes of trapping muskrats, situations in the freezing cold north get more and more arduous. Walter doesn't feel like he's failing but food and supplies are coming up short (especially after getting robbed by a wandering, desperate thief who becomes so numb to the cold, he doesn't feel the loss of his big toe). The situation becomes dire as the starving dogs are killed by Walter because food is scarce, and their first infant child is always crying and mistakenly places bullets to close to the fireplace! After the loss of their cabin, the couple and their baby find their way back with the help of the kind John Frederickson (Gordon Pinset) who shares his home to them - he falls for Olive and runs into her infrequently throughout the early 1900's up until the Depression. No surprise that Olive eventually married John. 

"The Silence of the North" has a frantic, hurried feeling about it, as if Olive herself and Walter were pushing themselves to get out of one scrape after another and move on to the next wild, cathartic situation. Of course, a longer running time would have befitted these perilous events, including a couple of family members passing along the way. The movie is so hurried that it doesn't even allow Ellen Burstyn, an actress who nakedly displays sympathy, to emote properly while traumatic events encompass her surroundings. I would hardly think that is by design, or true to the nature of the real Olive Frederickson (who co-wrote an autobiography, along with Outdoor Life magazine editor Ben East, back in the 70's on which this film is based). To be fair, some readers of the book have said the book is not long enough either, so there you have it. 

Some of "The Silence of the North" can get overwrought mainly because the events seem compressed, resisting the leisurely narrative flow of such a different, slower time where we can catch our breaths. A couple of scenes involving the threat of hungry bears and wolves are undercut slightly by a less than subtle music score. Still, as a picture of living in the rough terrain of the Northern Canadian wilderness and all of its drawbacks, "The Silence of the North" is exquisite filmmaking by documentary director Allan Winton King and some of the images in it I will never forget (the raging icy waters or the log cabin engulfed in flames, or the thief running in the distance after a major snowfall). Tom Skerritt bravely doesn't sentimentalize his character, a trapper who still loves the life despite the difficulties. Kudos to Gordon Pinset as John, one of the kindest, gentlest characters I have seen in a movie in quite some time. There is so much to savor that you can't help but feel Olive's emotional highs and lows thanks to Ellen Burstyn's often understated performance. "The Silence of the North" is at its most powerful when conveying the stillness of its environment and how it affects the people. 

Solid three-hankie tearjerker

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS (2014)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

It is hard to fathom that any single soul out there would not be even remotely moved by “The Fault

in Our Stars.” Although I am not a fan of dramas about terminally ill people (and are there fans
really?), “The Fault in Our Stars” digs a little deeper than most by focusing on the personalities of young adults who will not let illness rule their lives.

Shailene Woodley is the highly caustic 16-year-old cancer patient, Hazel Grace Lancaster, suffering
from a terminal thyroid cancer that has affected her lungs. This means she has to carry around an
oxygen tank, and attend support groups where the sponsor plays guitar and keeps a rug woven with the image of Jesus handy. Hazel needs more from life than to discuss her cancer with strangers
and she finds a far more supportive hand with a group member, Augustus Waters (Anser Elgort),
a teenager who lost a leg to bone cancer yet has the most beatific smile I’ve seen from a young male
in ages. Augustus walks around with cigarettes he never lights, consistently texts Hazel and is
persistently aiming to be to more than friends. Augustus looks at the world with optimism, trying to make it a better place. He helps his own friend, Isaac (Nat Wolff), who will lose both eyes to cancer and whose own girlfriend has left him due to this malady. Augustus also wants to share his love and compassion for Hazel (Saying “okay” to each other becomes their code for loving each other), even opting to get her to Amsterdam to meet the author of a book she consistently re-reads, titled “An Imperial Affliction” and written by a reclusive author, Peter van Houten (Willem Dafoe).

TV movies of the week used to primarily focus on the alienation of disease and how it affected a
family. There were great TV movies back then and some good theatrical ones that did not treat illness
with sentimental inclinations or any sanctimony; TV’s “An Early Frost” about AIDS and, likewise,
“Philadelphia” with Tom Hanks, come to mind. “The Fault in Our Stars” pushes further, which
is a refreshing change from the norm. The film looks at real human beings who just happen to
be afflicted with terminal cancer -- the love story between Augustus and Hazel works independently and is treated honestly. If the film had been about these sweetly innocent lovebirds only,
it would work like a charm. The terminal cancer aspect is simply treated as a hindrance in their lives,
something they work past to give validity to their own lives while looking ahead. That is what makes
“The Fault in Our Stars” such an endearing miracle of a movie - love is something to be cherished and
held in high regard. It is not resolutely about cancer.

I found little fault with “The Fault in Our Stars,” and that is remarkable in this day and age; some movies about young people can be a tad superficial. Not so with this film, and that is because of the extraordinary cast. Shailene Woodley is an actress that might give Jennifer Lawrence a run
for her money soon - Shailene is an actress of sublime restraint who shows amazing sympathy
without trying too hard. Anser Elgort is one of those mature teenagers who can smile and show
empathy with a mere glance or gesture - he doesn’t try too hard either. What is doubly amazing is that these two fantastic presences trounce Laura Dern and Sam Trammell (who play Hazel’s
parents) and even the titanic Willem Dafoe. The movie is a solid, three-hankie tearjerker, yet it
never sentimentalizes nor softens the drama. Watch it with tissues handy. It is going to be
“okay”.

Seize the Moments

BOYHOOD (2014) 

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Top ten best films of the 2010 era

Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

I once saw a short film on HBO, far too many years back to recall the title, about a filmmaker who is making a savagely violent film where a family is attacked and almost killed. Someone on the set reminds the filmmaker that life need not always be depicted as cruel and savage; how about a film about a divorced couple with a family who try to get along? “Boyhood” reminded me of that. This 2-hours-plus revelation is about the maturity of a divorced family, within a 12-year span, and it is everything I love about cinema and everything conventional wisdom says you should hate about independent cinema. There is no distinguishable plot and no character arcs and not much story except the story of a family and how they cope with each other, and learn to live with each other through hardships. To complain, as some have, of a lack of narrative thrust is to dismiss what the film ultimately accomplishes. Call it Scenes from Childhood, or just call it very poetically, “Boyhood.” 

The sweet Texas daydreamer Mason Jr. (Ellar Coltrane, who in the opening scene, is seen staring memorably at the blue sky while lying on school grounds) is the young boy, the son of Olivia and Mason, Sr. (both magnificently played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke). Lorelei Linklater is Samantha, the sister who likes to tease her brother (they are seen sharing bunkbeds in their early years). Olivia and Mason Sr. are divorcing; the dad hopes to reunite the family as a whole, rather than visiting on selective days of the week. The divorce ensues, years pass, and Olivia marries two other men. One is an alcoholic, highly strict professor (Marco Perella, depicting an unflinching brutality); the other, a former soldier turned corrections officer (Brad Hawkins, showcasing a father who would rather be admired than loved) who expects an older Mason Jr. to respect his curfew. The professor causes discomfort at the dinner table, asks for his own kids and his stepkids to show him their cell phones and, worst of all, forces Mason to have the worst haircut of his life (we kids have all been there - “You’ll look like a man instead of a little girl”). The corrections officer, shown unobtrusively in two scenes drinking a beer, insists that his strict adherence to work and maintaining his family makes him “cool.” Teen Mason’s painted fingernails and earrings do not impress this straight-as-an-arrow husband of Olivia’s life.

 Moment by moment, the family faces disruption and instability. Mason Jr. and Samantha always have to switch schools, Olivia is attracted to the wrong kind of men (vicious, drunk, belligerent bullies at best), yet it is Mason’s biological dad who makes amends in his own life and maintains stability -- he gets married for a second time and with a child of his own yet never forgetting his own brethren. Mason’s Dad is the one that we of so little faith deem as a loser in the beginning (some audience members might), living with a band member and smoking pot and driving the same black GTO - I even thought he would disappear from the picture. In fact, he ends up as the most responsible of the bunch. Olivia also makes amends, hoping to be a “mommy monk, simple, celibate” and selling her home, stating that she is spending the second half of her life getting rid of everything she worked for. It is Mason Sr. who reminds Olivia that she did a good job raising the kids and we believe it because we see it -you feel close to the family and this becomes one of those rare films where we, the observers, becomes as intimate with the family as they are with each other. 

The attraction of the movie, its galvanizing power, is that it captures moments in a family’s history - you do not seize the moment, the moment seizes you. The filmed record of more than a decade’s worth is a wonderful novelty, adding immeasurably to the proceedings (Director Richard Linklater actually filmed the kids and the adults consistently for 12 years). “Boyhood” reminds me of the “Up” documentaries of which director Michael Apted followed young kids to their adulthood. “Boyhood” does something more captivating and emotionally grounded - it seizes the honesty of moments, both grand and small, from the acute perspective of kids as they reach puberty and beyond. Those precious moments, all 142 minutes of them, seize us.

October 9th: A Day in Prehistoric Infamy

CAVEMAN (1981) 

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia 

My wife pointed out that the October 9th title seen in the ludicrous and overtly silly "Caveman" is actually John Lennon's birthday. Since "Caveman" stars Ringo Starr as a prehistoric, lecherous brute then it is no surprise that the title figures in the "plot." There is also Barbara Bach as a prehistoric beauty whom Starr has lustful thoughts brewing about - this is the film where they first met and married several months later. Thankfully such trivia doesn't overwhelm the crude humor and absurd shenanigans of "Caveman" - either you laugh or you won't. I often did.

"Caveman" has a little of everything to keep one amused, including being set, as indicated by another title, "one zillion years ago"; B.C. of course. Ringo Starr already looks like some wild-eyed naughty child as Atouk who wants Bach's Lana for himself, away from the humongous Tonda (John Matuszak, former football player for the Oakland Raiders), her boyfriend who towers over everybody. Meanwhile, there is Dennis Quaid as Lar, Atouk's friend, who ends up in the Ice Age tormented by what looks like the Abominable Snowman (a great visual gag sees the two of them frozen while Lar is running from the beast). Then there are two different dinosaurs from the Harryhausen school of stop-motion, both creatures torment the men and try to eat them. Avery Schreiber also appears though he looks out of place here - on the other hand, so does everybody else. 

"Caveman" has plenty of funny scenes and inspired gags, though it could've fully exploited its premise. For one, these prehistoric men don't look like prehistoric men or Cro-Magnon, more like boorish drunks who stayed up way past 3 am before succumbing to a hangover. Some gags are from the immature pre-school variety at best, including seeing mounds of fecal matter referred to by the men as "caca" and eventually as "shit" (pretty sure I also heard some fart noises as well). That may be the central notion that the prehistoric men were dumb and unsophisticated (the latter naturally) yet the film lifts little to no inspiration from its most obvious source, the Dawn of Man section of "2001: A Space Odyssey." What if they found a monolith that was shaped like a phallus and then discovered the pleasures of sex? The scene where Atouk tries to force himself on a sleeping Lana brings up memories of "Animal House," not necessarily anything that took place in B.C. More comedic bits could've been filtered around Evan Kim as another caveman who seems to be more advanced in language and communication. The "2001" comparison is apt for parody and clearly the filmmakers have Kubrick on their minds when featuring variable bits of the William Tell overture ("A Clockwork Orange") or the discovery of using fire as torches to ward off the enemy and beat them.

"Caveman" doesn't always sustain its comedic rhythm but I did laugh enough during its 90-minute run. Seeing Ringo amuse himself with his joy of performing grunts and discovering how to erect his back is funny - he's in on the joke and that keeps things amusing. Seeing Dennis Quaid slip on ice as he runs from the Snow Monster is hysterical. Watching Matuszak trying to master the art of throwing a rock is comic absurdity at its best. Everyone is on some sort of comedic high, even the googly-eyed stop-motion dinosaurs.  

Vampires that don't glitter

 What We Do in the Shadows (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia 

Reprinted with permission from Steel Notes Magazine

“Vampires don’t do dishes” – Deacon, old vampire

Imagine a mockumentary about vampires in Wellington, New Zealand. It is a brilliant idea in a
technology/Youtube-based world where everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, even if they have
done nothing. The vampires depicted in “What We Do in the Shadows” are not lazy creatures (save for
the 8,000-year-old Count Orlok-type who can’t bring himself to have a flat meeting with his younger
compatriots); they, in fact, roam the Wellington bars and clubs for fresh necks to bite. The conceit of
a documentary crew following them around makes for partly hysterical, partly horrifying fun.

Right from the start, the film made me smile. The 17th century fop, Viago (Taika Waititi), rises from
his coffin after his alarm clock goes off, and we hear him narrate his nocturnal activities.
First question: why does a vampire need an alarm clock? Oh, never mind. Meanwhile, the vampires
have flat meetings over undone chores, such as sweeping floors full of dead carcasses and cleaning
blood-stained dishes. The occasionally tempered Vladislav (Jemaine Clement, best remembered
for the HBO series “Flight of the Conchords”) is a former medieval warlord who tries to pull his
weight around the house they all share -- he could hypnotize crowds of people once upon a time but
has problems shape-shifting into other creatures because, according to Viago, “He could never get
the faces right.” A former European peasant and Nazi vampire, Deacon (Jonathan Brugh), is more rebellious, vociferous and refuses to do chores. Then there is Petyr (Ben Fransham), the ancient vampire who resembles Orlok from “Nosferatu” and almost never leaves the basement. Naturally, it is important for the curtains to be drawn nightly and there is the problem of dressing up for a bloody evening since vampires can’t see themselves in mirrors. The vampires live in a flat that looks ominous both indoors and outdoors. They need someone to sweep the leaves, clean up their bloody messes and procure human virgins as potential victims during their dinner parties. Their unlikely servant would be the very human Jackie (Jackie van Beek), who longs to become one of them. 

As swiftly written and directed by Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi (who will helm the next “Thor”
sequel), “What We Do in the Shadows” could have settled down as a solid black comedy with plenty
of wicked one-liners and bloody gags left and right. Remarkably, the filmmakers have also infused some bloody humanity into this as well, particularly Viago’s fondness for the woman from half-a-century ago he had hoped to be with. There is also a young lad who was presumed to be a virgin, Nick (Cori Gonzalez-Macuer), who becomes a vampire and shows the suffering one goes through in the preliminary stages, as if he was a heroin addict trying to kick the habit. It is these touches of human frailty that shows these vampires are not comic creations intended for us to laugh at them; they are no different from the rest of us, despite their supernatural abilities. Occasionally, the vampires run into werewolves (prior to the hairy beasts’ transformation) - the vampires believe these creatures to be smelly with a knack for urinating on everything.

With nods to Francis Ford Coppola’s operatic “Dracula,” “The Lost Boys” and the “Twilight”
series (Nick boasts about “Twilight” at the local clubs), “What We Do in the Shadows” is deliciously
wicked, often terrifying and bitingly funny. Every sequence leads to another smoothly with priceless
invention and delectable wit -- there is no shortage of wild ideas here that pay respect to vampire and
werewolf mythology. It is a perfect antidote to the sparkling “Twilight” series.