Peter Jackson, USA, 1996, 123 min.

There is energy behind The Frighteners. It’s the fun, gleeful energy brought by a director who grew up loving to make movies with his friends. And it’s an energy that is not diminished by the structure of Hollywood, due to producers who also have that same gleam in their eyes.

Michael J. Fox stars as a man with the power to see spirits, and makes friends with two of them so he can run a fraudulent paranormal investigation business. But he soon uncovers a spirit who is a real danger for all of the living in the town. The story is sufficiently complicated to deliver non-stop action, surprises, humor, and special effects.

It could have been a muddled mess, but all of this is deftly handled by Jackson. The special effects still look good and are a real accomplishment for the time. Jackson knows how to use them and how to integrate them with real footage, which most directors today don’t know how to do. The whole film is a lot of fun, with in-jokes and atmosphere and a genuinely exciting pace. It’s an over-looked gem of the genre and would make for great viewing this Halloween.

This film wins the award “Car With Least Traction” for Bannister’s slippery yellow sliding vehicle.

Ewald André Dupont, USA, 1953, 71 min.

Fifties Hollywood churned out just as much studio dreck as the Hollywood of today. But through the filter of a couple decades most of that has been forgotten. Problem Girls is one of those films that shouldn’t have made it through. But somehow it appeared on TCM.

The acting by third-tier studio players is poor, the direction is muddled and the editing is doing its best to tie together a poorly shot picture. This must be due to the production value, as the film was probably shot over a few days on its simple studio sets. I’m guessing the post-production team had their work cut out to make the results into a feature.

The story is very convoluted. A doctor takes a job at a school for troubled girls and winds up stumbling onto a den of sin: murder, kidnapping, brainwashing, girl-fights, torture, erotic piano playing, etc. I make it sound sensational. It isn’t.

Apart from the image above all of these things are presented quickly and without fanfare. It’s as if the film-makers were putting these things into the movie in order to check them off a list. All that does is make for a good poster, not a good film.

This movie wins the award “Least Believable Epilogue” for, well, the most forced happy ending I have ever seen.

Nicolas Winding Refn, USA, 2011, 100 min.

Drive is an enigma of a film. The story is straight action/thriller. Nicolas Winding Refn’s direction is art-house European/Hollywood. The character’s are one-note with a purpose. The music is offbeat but strangly fitting. It is many genres and none at the same time.

But the film works. Largely due to the way Ryan Gosling plays the driver. A quiet character, he clearly knows what his immediate needs are and acts on them. It’s quite interesting to watch him move and express himself within the context of the story.

The film is well-paced and the action and characters are well-executed. It’s hard to tell what the theme is, but the film is obviously very traditionally masculine. I beleive that was an important feeling they were trying to get across. They definitely did, and the results are effecient, entertaining and thought provoking.

This film wins the award “Most Masculine Film” for being a story about a man who drives cars alot and protects a family by committing physical violence.

Brian De Palma, USA, 1983, 170 min.

It’s hard to review this film without having seen it in its initial release. Since then, Scarface has been copied, homaged, parodied, and referenced to death. One must wade through all of those additional layers to get back to what the film meant at the time it was released.

Or do you? Should I review the film where stands now or where it stood then? It’s an interesting question. First, the thing that doesn’t change: Technique. The direction of Scarface is raw and realistic. It’s good in a low-key, naturalistic way, letting the action and performances speak for themselves. It lacks the operatic De Palma style that I love, and instead chooses to let Pacino be operatic on his own.

Pacino’s performance is definitely strong. Maybe too strong. Again, it depends on when you saw it. Over the years it has become a parody of itself and that hurts the film now. But taken as it is, he has an over-the-top and energetic presence that carries the story.

The story itself is simple. We have seen it many times before. A poor character rises up through the ranks of the underworld and ultimately falls. The only unique thing about it is the 1980′s Cuban/cocaine angle. Otherwise, it’s Icarus all over again.

Overall, there is a lot to like about Scarface. It’s a bold film with an even bolder performance. It’s crafted well from a screenplay/direction point. But it lacks what De Palma is so good at. A certain type of tension-building style that only he can do. Carlito’s Way is a good example and a film I vastly prefer. In Scarface, De Palma leaves all of that to Oliver Stone and Pacino to cover, and it left me wondering what the film would have been like if he didn’t.

This film wins the award “Best Use of a Helicopter” for a rather interesting way to kill someone.

Peter Hewitt, USA, 1991, 93 min.

Bill and Ted exist in their own world. Or do they exist in ours but see it in such a unique way that it feels like they don’t belong here? Am I over-analyzing? Maybe, but the appeal of their characters is real, and there must be some reason besides their slang and facial expressions. I believe it’s their world-view.

This film is a good example of how likeable characters put into interesting situations can carry a film. This time, an evil from the future goes back in time to the present to kill Bill and Ted. It turns out that their antics have created the perfect society, except of course, for the evil De Nomolos, who has it out for them.

This adventure takes them from San Dimas California to the afterlife to a seance to the hardware store to a Star Trek episode. It’s episodic, but when you get immersed in the characters and their attitude then that doesn’t matter.

The film is helped greatly by Wiliam Sadler as Death. The battleship scene is classic and effective. But Bill and Ted carry the film. We may not want to admit it, but they are a part of all of us. And if they aren’t, then you take yourself way too seriously.

This film wins the award “Best Use of Battleship” for the classic confrontation with Death.