Having watched five films in Craven's catalogue I was getting kind of excited. Before I had started watching his films I believed him to really only have nine films of a total of 22 that would be any good, but The last House on the Left ended up being much better than remembered and with Summer of Fear and Deadly Blessing being much better than expected, with the latter film being not only his best so far but a prelude of things to come, I was more energized in my endeavour to watch all things Craven.
But then I watched Swamp Thing and boy did it suck. It was his worst film so far and it was almost painful to watch at parts. It was also a huge disappointment. I didn't think very good things of The Hills Have Eyes but this was much much worse. They don't get much worse than Swamp Thing and it really has made me lose faith in Craven. I've started to resort to my original idea of Craven being a pretty weak director, a director that got lucky a few times in his career but otherwise the rest of his films could be written of into the wind. Before Swamp Thing he was starting to show some promise but Swamp Thing was so bad I am now very apprehensive to go on.
I mean Invitation to Hell I had never heard of up until a few months ago, yet it is 29 years old. It is also a made for TV movie which is never a good sign for quality. True, I did like and recommend Summer of Fear which is also a TV movie but a) it was made in the 70's which was a different world for television than the 80's and b) it came before Swamp Thing. Now I've got this film to contend with.
I know nothing about the plot or how well critics or audiences fared with this film. I do know the cast. the release date and that it was made for television. That's about it. But I've procrastinated enough and there's nothing left for me to do. I've cooked, I've cleaned, I've gone out, I've read, I've slept and now all I've got left to do is get through this film. I hope I'm wrong and I enjoy it like I did Summer of Fear and I hope I can recommend it when all is said and done, but my hopes aren't high on this one.
Okay, I'm diving in but I shall return shortly...
Review:
Film Rating: 61%
Breakdown (How Invitation to Hell scored 61%):
Directing: 7 out of 10
For a made for TV movie Craven has once again directed a film that he can be proud of. He has assembled a good crew and made a tight little film. Although it gets a 7 as it crumbles near the end.
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Would be more watchable if the ending wasn't as bad. Up until the last 20 minutes the film is actually pretty good. Gets a 5 as I would watch again, if I had to, and wouldn't mind if I did.
Originality: 5 out of 10
The story starts off well but then, with 20 minutes left to go it becomes a badly drawn out Poltergeist rip-off. Not that the first hour is specifically original but it does have it's charms and does have enough uniqueness to score a 5.
Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 6 out of 10
Some nice effects at the beginning, about an hour of no effects and then some excellent effects for TV intermixed with some very poor effects. The sets and locations work well, especially the ever changing house of the Winslow's. It's drastic and makes the audience feel what Matt Winslow (Robert Urich) is feeling. A few cheap props (such as a poor and uncreative sign for the health spa) bring this done to a 6.
Costumes and Make-Up: 6 out of 10
Some good costumes, with Pat Winslow (Joanna Cassidy) coming off rather well as her look and attire changes along with her character. But also a lot of generic costumes that don't say much at all. The make-up is much better, showing realistic wounds and burns and again, a drastic change in Pat Winslow's character. A strong 6 here.
Script: 5 out of 10
Pretty decent first hour. Strong writing, strong sense of foreshadowing and a strong sense of mystery. Unfortunately the writers can't keep up the good work and end up stealing liberally from Poltergeist and in a cheaper and cheesier way. So badly done is the last 20 minutes that it drops this category down to a 5.
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Shot by the legendary Dean Cundy, the cinematography here is excellent. Amazing lighting and perfectly framed shots, especially for a made for TV movie. It only gets a 7 because it was sht in a boring 1.33:1 ratio which doesn't do much for the eye.
Editing: 7 out of 10
Pretty tightly edited. The film flows nicely, is never boring and is never jarring. A 7 for editing as it is good, but there is nothing unique or exciting about it. It's good, it works but that's about it.
Acting: 7 out of 10
Robert Urich leads a solid cast of actors who all put out rather convincing performances. There are moments here and there where the acting seems a bit forced but overall the acting far exceeds the Tv nature of the production.
Music: 6 out of 10
Music: 6 out of 10
The music works well for the most part but like many of Craven's works, and many movies from this era and many TV movie's there are lots of over the top or corny themes and cues. These don't happen to often and otherwise the music is rather exciting, thrilling and well constructed. A high 6 but no more as it could of been an all round better score.
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
After:
The film takes the age old story of a family, new in town, that begins to discover sinister things afoot. This time around the evil is originating from a local health club and our titular hero, Robert Urich as Matt Winslow, is the only one that can resist its pull. After his friends and family are drawn in and become part of the 'club' it is up to him to rescue them. As the title suggests, it is literally hell that Winslow is up against.
So if I say that I enjoyed this film, then why don't I recommend it? The answer lies in the last 20 minutes of the film. But before I get there lets talk the good things about the film. First and foremost it is head and shoulders above and better than Swamp Thing. So much so that it has brought me a renewed excitement in my odyssey to do all things Craven. The acting is better than I thought possible for a TV movie from 1984. Urich gives a great performance as Winslow, creating a likeable and believable hero. I'd love to see more of his work. The rest of the cast does a fine job too and that includes the child actors (for the most part).
Another positive aspect of this film is the story and how it plays out. It's mysterious and fun, and while never actually scary, it did keep me intrigued for most of it's run time. From it's opening death scene to the foreshadowing space suit to the halloween party, things are laid out nicely and played upon well. But the best thing about this film is the cinematography by the great Dean Cundy (Halloween, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park). Although shot in the standard 1.33:1 ratio, the framing is tight and the lighting perfect. It sure doesn't look like a TV movie and Cundy does well with the blocking, framing and placement of the things inside the awkward full frame image.
But now let's return to why this film didnt work and why I ultimately don't recommend it. Of course there are a few cheesy lines, a few cheesy moments scattered throughout and a minor amount of wooden performances that lower the quality of the picture but those alone do not a bad film make. There are two reasons here why Invitation to Hell doesn't make the cut.
The first reason is the story, or the originality of the story if you will. This film is a made for TV rip-off of Poltergeist. I realized this in the last 20 minutes of the film and at this point it doesn't bother hiding the fact. Our hero, Winslow, must travel into the gates of hell (into the other world in Poltergeist) and rescue his family. Pull them out and back into reality. The entire last 20 minutes is a cheaper knock off of the last 20 minutes of Poltergeist. Watching the film as I did, not knowing anything about it, I missed the connections early on but thinking back to the beginning of the film you can already see the similarities between the two movies right from the beginning.
The second reason the film loses my recommendation is that it falls apart at the end. Even though it rips off Poltergeist it doesn't do it well. At first things look good. Winslow is in the caverns of hell that look amazing for such an old TV movie, but then it seems that the budget was all eaten up. We get film in reversed negative for a special effect. We get blue lights that act as barriers, we get no devil make-up and we get a really bad blue screen effect of a fire off in the distance. Couple the terrible effects with the rip-off aspect and an air of cheesiness (I love you's and hugs save the day) and the film falls apart at the seams. It's too bad as the first part of the film was generally enjoyable.
I did like this film better than I had thought I would. If you like to watch movies but cut them off before they end then I wholeheartedly recommend this one. Otherwise you will just be left disappointed like I was. It starts off great, keeps the momentum going and then it loses it big time. Craven does a fine job directing, one of his better jobs so far, until he falls under the weight and constraints of the ending.
This film came so close to being worthwhile that it did redeem Craven for me after the debacle that was Swamp Thing. It also has the continuing theme running through all of Craven's films (except for Swamp Thing) so far of families torn apart by the evils that surround them. Looking at what's still to come, I'm thinking that this continuing theme is going to soon end, which I suppose is based upon what I know of his future films.
With that said, things haven't been as bad as I expected when I started Craving Craven. By no means are they amazing but I've enjoyed more of his films than I expected too. I still haven't seen enough to make my assessment on Craven, on whether he is a good director or a bad one, if he is a one trick pony or a genius in the horror world but I'm getting close and when I finish The Hills Have Eyes part 2 I'll be one step closer.
No comments:
Post a Comment