Q (1982)

Does looking at this poster make you wish that you were watching this Larry Cohen film now? For me, it did. I remember looking at this title, the brief description in my film book and thinking to myself, I cannot - literally - cannot wait to watch this movie. I had read a couple of lavishing reviews, I had seen THIS poster, and I was familiar with Cohen's work. I was ready with my eyes to feast upon what this Harryhousen-styled beast had to offer. But, then I watched it. For nearly two hours, I found myself glued to a screen that I shouldn't have been impressed with to begin. The monster was there, the insane criminal was finely played by Michael Moriarty, but the rest - what I shall aptly entitle from now on, the "B-roll" was nothing short of filler and excess. The actual story could have fit within a mere hour, but what should have then been used for character development or story development, it was used to show cops drinking, the beast randomly taking people from rooftops, missing lunches, and lastly, a petty thief attempting to get his comeuppance with the NYPD for a false imprisonment that we never knew existed to begin with.

Urg, I wanted to like Q: The Winged Serpent, but what was supposed to be amazing B-schlock just transformed into a bland film that began at one point, ended at another, while attempting to fill everything else with just neat scenes - that in reality were not neat, just filler. I think this is my first Michael Moriarty film, and while everything in my body compels me to watch more, he successfully transformed what could have been the backbone of this story into a weak, uninspired side character that doesn't accompany Carradine's "Dopey Dog" sleuthing one bit. I could see where this story wanted to go. I wanted the criminal and the cop to come together to eliminated this random winged serpent from the city -- but it never happened. Carradine did his own things, while Moriarty kept feeding us information that was completely unnecessary. In one scene we learn that he was once a junkie, in another he attempts to scat for money, and in another he is getting a million dollars from the city to locate a bird that everyone in the city sees EXCEPT for the police. Couple this with a girlfriend that demonstrates no compassion for her obviously insane boyfriend (this couldn't have been the first experience with this), we just have nothing.

There were moments throughout this film where I just didn't understand what was happening. Is it a movie about a winged serpent? If so, where did it come from and who was summoning it? That last question became the crux of my confusion with this film. If the title of your movie is Q: The Winged Serpent, why isn't that the basis of the film. The old-school animation for the beast was fun, the shrilling of the knock-off violins were not, the eating special effects were used over and over again (lack of creativity), and it just continued to plummet downhill further after that. There was a few scenes that were fun near the end, where the serpent found his pride and started throwing cops off the buildings, but outside of that Q: The Winged Serpent was an utter mess. There was a part of me, and there still is, that really wanted to stand behind this film. To rally the value of such a cult B-movie, but after a viewing, I would be happy not to watch it again. Perhaps I witnessed an extremely edited version in which huge plot was removed. Nothing made sense, nothing was developed, our characters were sloppy. I just squirm thinking about what I just saw. Even Jen laughed. She wasn't even watching, just laughing at Droopy Carradine slothing his way through each line. He was like a hung-over Zen master attempting to understand police-work. What made this even more fun was his cliche partner who was African American giving us lines that have been used over and over and over again. Nothing worked. This was a Cohen disaster.

Found in my "Videohound Golden Retriever 2009" this begins a long run of "Q" films that have utterly disappointed me. For Q: The Winged Serpent I realized that this was a low budget movie that had no dreams of anything except becoming a midnight movie cult sensation, but I even think it failed in that respect. I wanted more, I wanted something that just didn't seem like drunken thoughts pushed on paper. Which, might I add, I wouldn't mind if it worked well. This movie failed. I had too high of hopes, and now it is stuck with a yellow highlight with a black line. I don't want to watch this movie again. If Criterion picked it up, perhaps I would revisit it - but for now, it was a lackluster B-roll film that Cohen sloppily threw together.

Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

First, take a look at this poster. I am not talking about the image of Audrey Hepburn, but instead the sweater wearing William Holden, holding his alcoholic beverage of choice as two Indians peek in. That's right. This movie doesn't just have booze, babes, and bands, but in fact, Indians and Tony Curtis. As un-PC as that sounds, this movie goes quickly from boring, to insane, to funny, to surreal, to risky, to just plain bizzare (and probably back again). Unsure of what to expect when this film starts, Paris When It Sizzles completely took me off-guard. At first, the inclination was that it was going to be a rom-com to the utmost degree, but after further viewing - all the way until the end - this film transformed into the foundation for Charlie Kaufmann's Adaptation. If you thought that movie was creative, then you have yet to see Paris When It Sizzles.

Jen and I went a bit back and forth on this movie. She found a scene that she wants to be played during her funeral, I discovered that drinking all day long, at times shirtless and other times attempting to play Parcheesi with Hepburn, again shirtless, can in fact provide you with enough time (2 days) to write a script. Mind you, the drinking is the most critical moment needed. I feel like I should be asking the question, "Have you ever wanted to write a screenplay?"..."Do you like to drink?" These are all important questions to ask when watching, Paris When It Sizzles. The story is simple. Holden has spent most of his advance for a script boozing, boozing, and well, boozing. Hepburn arrives as the woman to help him get his ideas back. What we, as audience members, watch are his ideas coming to the screen. In a very Hitchcockian storyline, Holden gives us the perspective from the writer. How do ideas come about? Why are twists important? How are cliche's built? These are the type of questions Holden develops, and the end result is nothing like you have seen in films before - especially those made in 1964. The concept, to me, seemed original. I liked watching a movie within a movie, the nuances that give certain scenes that panache and punch described in detail. Of coarse, what would a movie be without a love interest, and the one between Holden and Hepburn feels forced and spooky for a bit due to age and pushiness of Holden. But through time it develops. It never quie reaches that state of "real", but I don't think anything in this movie is supposed to have that feel.

I liked the inside jokes to this film. I liked that Hepburn was reciting lines from her Breakfast at Tiffany's film. I liked that Tony Curtis was the quintessential ace out of the hole. Playing a bit part, and constantly being reminded of it. While I have read critiques that the story is what lacks in this film, and the Holden/Hepburn connection is strong, I stand on the other side. I was pulled into the story of this film. I liked that it felt innocent and sincere, but the sexual jokes and party at the end spoke otherwise. Needless to say, this was a different movie than I originally thought it was going to be. Absolutely, there were parts that seemed long, there were jokes that felt dated, and there were awkward moments due to social changes, but I kinda really liked where this film went. The story within a story leading to our two falling in love without ever leaving the comfort of the hotel room was a nice device. Imagination and creativity were abound in this film, and director Richard Quine. Film buffs I think would appreciate this film more than just the casual viewer.

Oddly, this movie was found in my "Essential Monster Movie Guide" because, for those film buffs that semi-glance at this blog, there is a really cool scene in which Hepburn takes over the script and invisions Holdon as a vampire-esque creature. This, sadly, is one of those scenes that just felt random instead of tangent, which ultimately lead into a scene in which Holden was getting Hepburn drunk. Ahh, the 1960s - my question - have times really changed? I am giving this a green highlight with blue stas. I would watch this again, while I believe Jen would not (it is things from this era that I have learned are not favorites of hers - re: Tom Baker's Dr. Who years). I enjoyed Tony Curtis' in this film, and cannot wait to see him in something else. The Sweet Smell of Success is being released by Criterion soon - maybe it will be one I watch right away. I would suggest this film. I would show it to my neices. I think this era of 60s needs to be remembered, despite the heavy drinking. Good movie for MOVIE DAY. I look forward to finding this movie again.