"Bring me the knife, Norman...bring it to me.."

PSYCHO III, yes, Three.

WHY do I love this movie? Well, there are a couple o' reasons.
1. It's insane.
2. It's funny
3. I think Alfred Hitchcock would like this film.

But most of all - it's when Mother moves and speaks independently of Norman...awesome. I so hated this when I saw it years ago..."Hitch'd roll over in his grave, etc." ..
...but I was wrong...way wrong - there had to be some pretty interesting conversations during the genesis of this story..."Are we really making Mother talk independently of Norman...what the hell are we saying here?"
I love the Mother character in this movie. This time she is far more menacing than before - finally giving us the sense that Norman truly doesn't have the strength to resist his own mind. Inevitability. This isn't simply a controlling matriarch personality but an actual monster. And that voice... malevolent and creepy...

The movie is so strange and ...I dunno - "dirty 80's", that it has an odd charm...as though Norman Bates had directed it...and not Anthony Perkins. Psycho 3's underpinnings are as much the schlock inspired by Psycho as the original film, itself...more, in fact.
But...Norman's not a bad director, as it tuns out...the film has some really good shots...and about half of it is tongue firmly in cheek. Great.
Mind you, heavy-handed metaphors abound(with a Vertigo inspired opening) ..and I can't help but guess that Perkin's hidden life might also be playing into his themes and imagery. He plays a kooky paranoid with a secret very, very well...

Like Spielberg's shark(the non-functioning Bruce that necessitated his film be suspense over action), I do believe that the imposed limitations on Hitchcock's violence lent him more class than he'd have preferred having ...again, I think he'd smile at Psycho 3. It's violence feels different than the previous two films...like it's taking a self-aware pleasure...again, like Norman is directing a film about "Mother".
Psycho 3 also boasts one very strange bit in which we finally get to see Norman speaking as Mother...oddly edited, it ends up a spooky scene with a subtle tone of the supernatural...the place I'm surprised they didn't go with a fourth film.

...And there are those two good reasons the sequels to these films are not as easily dismissed as some other follow-ups of this calibre or better...the set and the star. The sequels all use the Universal set and the original Norman...lending a 30 year history to the whole thing - to the buildings themselves and as a cinephile watching CG replace "matter", this matters to me.
And that last shot is the antithesis of Psycho's sterile, "innocent" Mother/Norman - with a clearly mad Norman cradling the mummified hand of his dead mother - that fade on that face...good, cheesy fun.

And we all know that everybody loves at least one lousy film...this is mine.

I too, am a Buckaroo...

...or a Blue Blaze Irregular...
On The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the 8th Dimension:

I've had the closing music from this film running through my head for 26 years...no joke. Finally sat down with a friend to watch it last night, and I can honestly say neither of us expected too much.
Wow, I haven't been "instantly in-love" with a movie in a long time. The Straight Story, maybe...only a few ever worked like this. I can't stop smiling but I have no idea even how to discuss this film...it is just so unique. Had a sense, going in, that I wouldn't "get" it at all, having not seen it younger and in that 80's mindset, but that's the thing about a clever movie - it doesn't matter at all when a clever movie was made - just that you found it. Casablanca was a great reminder of this.
No wonder Buckaroo's had a following since it's release in 1984 - I think you'd see more films like this...if they didn't cost money. It seems to be a direct relationship between the watering down process and the budget for most films being made these days, Avatar being a great example; the 2 billion dollar movie whose "originality" could fit into any 2 minutes of Buckaroo Banzai, which ironically made about 2 cents.
And originality is the name of the game here.

As I try to figure out why I liked this so much I realize I don't want to...not completely. It really seems the only way to enjoy this as much as we do, was to make it...cool. The whole thing has such an honest energy, as though the world already loved this guy - this adventure, and the actors knew it(believed it). It's too bad this movie is smarter than most of the people who watch movies...so were The Thing and Blade Runner, etc...unfortunate, but at least films like Bubba Ho-tep can bridge the gap while were waiting for rare moments of genius.

It had to be Buckaroo's crazy script that got that amazing group of actors so enthusiastic, and maybe a director who knew how good it was. Buuuut, unlike say Zodiac, which really seems to be a singular director's vision, this seems to be a confluence of elements creating something far better than the sum of it's parts. There's a density to this film I didn't expect either, as though the continuing saga was guaranteed, and you just needed to hop on for this adventure and subsequent films would fill in the blanks...it has an absolute confidence in itself without being pretentious or self-aware...I wish I could know more people like this film.

The scene at the end with an alien Christopher Lloyd furiously correcting the pronunciation of his name...extraordinary. This now ranks among my absolute favorite film scenes ever, standing in such company as Holy Grail and even, dare-I-say-it .. Apocalypse Now or The Godfather...because it really comes down to two great actors making a good script into a brilliant scene. Does it work?..does it entertain??

My thanks to all the boys and girls who made Buckaroo happen...
I honestly can't remember the last time I enjoyed any 2 hours this much.

This...is the ZODIAC speaking...

Where to begin. Watched it once - good film - enjoyed it...but, like Chinatown and French Connection, it had an insidious effect...just a gentle hankering to watch it again...
..and by viewing 22 I realized I might have an obsession developing...it is a compelling story and a very true story...and I wanted to know more. No, I had to know more.
Read Robert Graysmith's book then his other book then every piece of material I could find...but it all comes back to David Fincher's Zodiac...what I consider to be one of the best American films ever made.

Jake Gyllenhall and Mark Ruffalo are great and great together.. as are the wide and varied supporting cast(led by Robert Downey jr.)... character acting that evokes thoughts of films like All the President's Men or Glengarry Glen Ross - intense and committed. Everyone looks and feels "period".
Now thanks to some of the more famous lazy directors, CG and greenscreens have become embarrassingly overused, but it's the invisible stuff I love...watch the extras to learn that 1/2 the film is trickery...brilliant - If I can't tell there's CG - it's good GC...and they do manage to stylishly re-create old San Francisco like we're dreaming about it.
The film is as much about the nature of obsession as it is about the killer...perhaps moreso. It is a drama, a thriller and a period piece that will leave you with questions despite it's "answers" and the 2 audio tracks are as good as the movie...so much information on the case and so much on making the film...
Visually, this'd be a good watch on mute - it is gorgeous...but I do believe that only a nostalgic love can generate such a singular, consistent vision of the landscape one grew up in - and that makes this a love letter to a different time - Fincher's love letter to bygone California...and, though elements of this story are icy cold, you can feel the warmth of a boy's memories throughout.
The soundtrack is perfection in its balance between the creepy and the oddly personal...and does become haunting...as haunting as the interviews with the real players from the period(double disc extras) who, again, answer some questions..but inspire even more. There may be a killer interviewed on this disc.

This, along with Seven, could be the alpha and omega of modern serial killer films from the action of one versus the effect of another...with only Silence of the Lambs as a potential challenger. If I had to guess, I'd say Hitchcock would've been interested in any of these 3 scripts.

And then there's that oh-so-smart tagline:
"There's more than one way a serial killer can take your life..." ..he's claimed plenty of mine, as has David Fincher, but I'm not complaining.

THE THING is

Most of all...
my favorite "And then there were none" story.
I don't think I've watched any movie more times ...perhaps Blade Runner.
John Carpenter's The Thing is exceptional on so many levels; isolation story - monster movie - character study...and like Witness as 3 films in one. The Thing succeeds as everything it wants to be. There isn't a second in this story that breaks character or reality...and that is impressive in any film, let alone one about an alien monster from space.
What makes this the best of the many movies that investigate small isolated groups disappearing one by one is the ambiguous ending...genius. No sequel...no happy resolution...and so completely satisfying where every other story like this one provides a concrete answer. It leaves one asking "..would I even know if I turned into something awful?..would you?"

Almost as much fun as the film is the audio track with JC and Kurt Russell, but I'm a sucker for these two together and Carpenter's early body of work is my most loved group of films next to Hitchcock's. The commentaries that blend experience with real filmmaking education are the best, and this is theirs. Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, The Fog, and Escape from NY are simply works of art buuuut...like Blade Runner or Star Wars I do believe that the Morricone(like Jaws, simple, scary, awesome) score, the Albert Whitlock artwork, the visual palette, and the all practical all amazing effects work bring so many accomplished artistic minds together that you have, not a singular vision but a film that has literally the best talent across the board. Throw together a dozen great character actors and I think I could watch The Thing every day.

A Duel with Clint Eastwood

..or Hitchcock films by other people. Steven Spielberg's "Duel" is brilliant. Simple. Perfect...and so charmingly Hitchcockian that had he been on set with Spielberg I don't think the film would be very different...perhaps a young Hitch anyway.
Then there's Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me" as his Hitchcock and I'd be hard pressed to say who's first film is better or more like the master. Both Directors moved on to tell their own tales in their own ways but to swap directors on these...again, might not change 'em much. Both are relentless pursuit tales...both end with the antagonist taking a plunge...and both came out in '71(in fact, they were released two days apart)...and who'd be the top two names now?
If you watch them back to back I suggest "Duel" first, only for the fact that it takes place by day...then "Misty" ...to make the shadows scary...and for the fact that I do consider "Misty" marginally better...more repeat viewings...more to soak up...and as fun as it is to watch Dennis Weaver go crazy...Jessica Walter is absolutely sublime. Clint also has some real fun with the score...very artistic touches and the little 70's details are worth paying attention to...the touches of 2 future masters...but I am a sucker for 1st films, pilot episodes, first seasons...the raw over the refined. This is not to say these films are anything but perfect...but both storytellers moved into more complex realms film by film. These are two of my absolute favorites ...two amazingly forward driven narratives...time-travelling to a coastline of 1971...and getting to learn from two of the best...
...and what is #4 in the ten of 2010 ?.?..

The Ten of Twenty Ten

OK...so that list is just too short...and a tad depressing.
A more fun approach might be the(my) most study-able ten flicks...The 10 of 2010...that can function as how-to templates for a quirky director-to be such as myself. These aren't the "best" or my absolute favorites...more a grouping of skillsets and personal experiences that made these just a bit more worthy than the rest. Worst case - I end up knowing far too much about a handful of geniuses and write a book someday...best case...this cat becomes a respected filmmaker...
In no order...Citizen Kane - This (like Casablanca)is worthy of it's stature. You want to understand film language...watch Kane...read something about it...then watch it again. I feel like I'm in a film course that Orson Welles is teaching...forever. To open a film with the death of the protagonist and an outline of the plot might seem ..well - crazy ..but each time, I am more intrigued by Kane...Why? Is it the writing? Is it the technical mastery? Does Tarantino's assembly of Pulp Fiction differ much from this? Brilliant. Next...Steven Spielberg's "Duel"...