I thought I’d take a short break from my kung fu marathon to finish a movie I started watching the other night but fell asleep about halfway through. That’s not a good sign, is it? I did start the movie pretty late at night so falling asleep isn’t a great predictor about how I feel about the movie, but falling asleep during a movie I’ve never seen before isn’t a resounding endorsement either. The movie in question in Night Vision, a 1987 psychological thriller labelled as “horror” on Tubi and IMDB. I don not consider Night Vision a horror movie, and I don’t consider it a very good movie either. Even though the ideas are pretty good, the execution feels like it’s stretched out with not much happening for long periods of time.
Night Vision is about Andy, a naïve young man from Kansas who travels to the big city of Denver, Colorado to try to gain some life experience to help inspire his fledgling writing career. Andy meets a cast of colorful characters including a thief/street hustler named Vinnie and a video store clerk named Jill who is fed up with big city life. Vinnie and Andy become fast friends, and Vinnie gifts Andy a TV and VCR that he stole and is attracting unwanted attention from dangerous guys in black robes. There was a tape in the VCR that mostly shows static to begin with, but eventually begins to show Andy frightening images of violence and satanic rituals that may or may not be real. Meanwhile, Andy is forming a relationship with Jill, but Andy’s mental state is degenerating and causes problems between the two of them. Is the big city wearing Andy down like its worn down Jill, or is there something more sinister going on?
I enjoy the idea of a horror movie based on some sort of mystical/psychological influence of TV and videos, but it’s not like the idea was original even in 1987. The first movie that springs to mind like this is the great Videodrome from 1983, but as I’ve said before, I don’t mind a good rip-off. The issue I have with Night Vision is that it just drags too much for my taste.
There is a whole lot of character building in Night Vision which is fine, but at some point I’d like to have something happen to begin to ramp up the tension. Over an hour into the movie I still felt like the movie was just building Andy’s character, and the images on his TV barely seemed to play a part in the story. That changes in the final 40 minutes (the movie is 1 hour 40 minutes long), but nothing really happens until the final fifteen minutes or so. By that point I was kind of checked out, even watching it in two pieces since I fell asleep on the first try.
Maybe if I hadn’t expected a horror movie I would feel differently, but I couldn’t really get into Night Vision. If kind of just made me want to watch Videodrome.
I couldn’t find an official trailer, so here’s a poor copy of the full movie on YouTube.
I’m doing a little catch-up today after getting behind in posting (and watching) my movies of the day, so this entry might be shorter than most. But really, what is there to say about Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho that hasn’t already been said? Not much. Even so, I’ll take you through a little bit of my experience watching it again for the first time in quite a while.
If you’re unfamiliar, Psycho stars Janet Leigh as Marion Crane, a woman who steals a great deal of money in a spur-of-the-moment decision. Marion drives out of town to surprise her lover with the money that could free them both from the debts keeping them apart, but a rain storm causes Marion to stop for the night at a secluded motel. Psycho also stars Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, the quiet and rather nervous young man who runs the motel. Norman seems nice, and he takes a liking to Marion, but when Marion overhears Norman’s elderly and overbearing mother yelling at Norman, it begins to become clear that there is something dark within the Bates family. If you’ve really never seen the movie and don’t know what happens after that, I certainly won’t spoil it here. Psycho is a must-watch for all people who love movies.
I’ve seen Psycho a fair number of times, and even though I hadn’t seen it in a while, many of the scenes came back to me right away. It had been long enough where I didn’t remember the specifics of the dialogue and performances though, and that’s what really struck me during this watch.
Anthony Perkins is amazing as Norman Bates. The complexity of emotions he displays in pretty much every scene is astounding. The character of Norman Bates would certainly typecast Perkins for much of his career, but what a role to be remembered for. Two scenes in particular stood out to me this time with regards to Perkins’ performance. The first is when he has a conversation with Marion in the lounge of the motel. Janet Leigh is fantastic as well, and both Marion and Norman leave the conversation as different people than we thought they were when they entered it. Then, later in the film, Norman has to speak to a private detective, and the mounting tension hidden just beneath Norman’s words and voice is incredible.
Norman has a way of unintentionally drawing people in with his quiet charm and slight naivete, and Perkins’ performance does the same to the audience. We start to feel for Norman, and that makes the twists and turns more effective when the darkness in the Bates family is revealed. Even if you know how the movie ends, and I’m sure you probably do, the characters are so well developed that the tension still works greatly.
I’ve never seen the sequels to Psycho, nor have I seen the 1998 remake. I kind of don’t want to watch any of them for different reasons, but with a movie a day to watch, I might try them out at some point.
Climate of the Hunter (2019) – A Movie A Day 2021 #25
Climate of the Hunter poster
I was looking for another newly released horror movie to watch when I came across the trailer for Climate of the Hunter, and it intrigued me the most out of the handful of new horror movies released this month. With its strong 1970s vibes, its fullscreen/1.33 aspect ratio, and its promise of some arthouse indie weirdness with vampires, the trailer sold me on a VOD rental. After watching Climate of the Hunter I would debate its categorization as a horror movie, but it did turn out to be an enjoyably quirky and darkly comedic psychological thriller.
So what is Climate of the Hunter about? That might be difficult to pin that down exactly, but I’ll give it shot. A large part of the movie is about family. The story focuses on sisters Alma (Ginger Gilmartin) and Elizabeth (Mary Buss) and their strained relationship. The sisters are staying together in a vacation cabin owned by their family, and the two of them range from passive aggressive to downright hostile in their interactions throughout the film. Their relationship is further tested when a charming and worldly writer named Wesley (Ben Hall) comes to stay in the cabin next door. Alma and Elizabeth are both attracted to Wesley, and Wesley is content to accept affections from them both which, of course, exacerbates their sibling rivalry.
Through multiple dinner conversations (usually involving immaculately prepared 1970s-era dinners, the contents of which are narrated to us, the audience) we learn that Wesley has his own struggles with family, specifically his wife who was recently committed to a mental institution and his son who blames Wesley for his mother’s condition. Add to all of this the fact that Alma’s daughter Rose visits after being somewhat estranged from her mother for years, and you have all the makings of a tense family drama.
Climate of the Hunter is also about mental instability. The very first thing we see in the movie is a typed report describing the mental condition of one of the characters. The prognosis isn’t good, and with delusions, psychotic episodes, and more being planted in our brains right away, it sets us up to expect a difficult time for the people we’re soon to meet. So in a way, Climate of the Hunter is about experiencing the mental decline of one of our main characters. But with the way the story is told, there is a lot of room for us to wonder if that character is sane and has just been put in an insane situation. Why? Because Wesley might be a vampire.
Now don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler. We see vampiric images in the trailer, and every writeup for the movie explicitly states that Wesley might or might not be a vampire. Throughout the many conversations, hints are dropped about his possible blood-sucking proclivities. We also see certain things that would make us believe he is, in fact, a vampire, but there is still some doubt because of how the movie is constructed.
There is a lyrical nature to many scenes throughout Climate of the Hunter. Wesley has an eloquent way of speaking even when he’s talking about some of the most crude things imaginable. Also, Wesley likes to talk a lot. I’ve already mentioned the conversations in the movie a few times, and that’s because most of the movie is centered on long conversations with highly stylized dialogue. The dialogue and deliveries from the actors give the movie a sense of a heightened reality, and that leads into the visuals. Stars shine brighter than they should, lights appear where they shouldn’t, thoughts are represented visually, and dreams blend with reality. Visuals like that aren’t used excessively, but they’re used often enough to keep the audience a bit off balance. But is what we’re seeing simply meant to evoke certain emotions, of are we sharing the delusions of one or more of the characters? Or maybe both? No clear answers are given, and your willingness to accept ambiguity is going to be one of the deciding factors for if you will enjoy Climate of the Hunter or not.
I enjoyed Climate of the Hunter, but it’s definitely going to be an acquired taste for many people. It’s quirky in ways that reminded me slightly of a dark, alternate-universe version of a Wes Anderson movie. Maybe I kept thinking of Wes Anderson because of how the movie is shot (very symmetrical, straight-on shots of characters, quick zooms, etc.), but I do think it’s a valid comparison as far as the aesthetic goes. And really, the 1970s aesthetic is one of the things I really love about the movie. It’s convincing in a way that most modern filmmakers just can’t pull off.
The comedy in Climate of the Hunter is dark, and for the most part it’s very, very dry. It’s more of a smirking movie than a laugh out loud movie, though I did chuckle a few times when a situation caught me off guard. The biggest takeaway as far as a recommendation goes is that the movie is dialogue-heavy. If you enjoy a talky indie movie that gets weird and slightly uncomfortable, then Climate of the Hunter might be for you.
You know, the more I think about it as I’m writing this, the more I’m finding to love about the movie. My initial reaction when finishing it was, “yeah, that was fun,” but now I kind of want to watch it again. I’m sure I will at some point.
So did I answer my question from earlier? What is Climate of the Hunter about? On the surface, it’s not about much. The characters’ fates seem as inevitable as the typed mental report shown to us at the beginning of the film. It’s about a brief moment in the lives of a handful of people whose personal problems begin to become each other’s problems as they discuss life and philosophy over some colorful and not-terribly-appetizing food. But is it about vampires? Maybe.
