Thursday, December 1, 2011

DAY OF THE ANIMALS

Directed by William Girdler. Written by Eleanor Norton and William W. Norton.
Starring Christopher George, Lynda Day George, Richard Jaeckel, Michael Ansara, Paul Mantee, Andrew Stevens, Susan Backlinie and Leslie Nielsen.
1977, 97 minutes, Rated PG, 2.35:1



A very good example of the "nature against man" genre that was popular in the 1970's, DAY OF THE ANIMALS tells the story of a group of hikers trapped on a mountain when the animals, all of the animals, band together to attack man. The idea is that the depleted ozone layer has let too much harmful radiation in and that affects the animals.

DAY OF THE ANIMALS was filmed in TODD-AO 35, or standard 35mm using the TODD-AO wide angle lens. Apparently the only decent material DVD distributor Shriek Show had to work with was a full screen master. Rather than releasing it full screen they cropped it and released it in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen . When you take into account the fact that it was cropped for pan and scan to begin with the additional cropping is pretty bad. Not totally unwatchable, but bad. Also included on the disc is a horrible 2.35 version of the film. (There are two versions of the film on one disc.) And when I say horrible, I mean HORRIBLE. Scratches run throughout, color shifts constantly--one second the sky is blue, the next it's purple, the next it's blue, the next it's gray... There are a couple of entire reels that are fuzzy. Almost unwatchable. I mean, I watched it, but I'm a fan. Others should beware.

As for the movie itself, I love it. It is firmly in the 'B' movie range, but it still has some great aspects.  I have strong memories of watching this on pay cable around 1979 or so.  The cinematography is effectively used to build a suitable atmosphere for the proceedings. The film generates a great apocalyptic feel considering its budget and somewhat variable acting. It ultimately doesn't make much sense, but while you're in the thick of it you don't notice.  GRIZZLY is generally considered to be a better film, but I prefer this one due to its bigger scope.

The director, William Girdler would go on to make THE MANITOU, which is many things but it isn't boring.  He would then die in a helicopter accident while scouting locations for his next film.

There is also a novelization that expands the scope of the disaster a bit by including more of how the town is affected, but is otherwise identical to the film.

TV master version:


Theatrical version:


2013 Blu-Ray:










Comparison of OOP Shriek Show DVD and Scorpion Blu-Ray. DVD images are first, Blu-Ray images are second:





















Minor editing done 12/01/11. Original post was 07/2009

THE SWARM


Arthur Herzog wrote a series of ecologically-themed novels in the 1970's, the most famous of which is The Swarm. It's a good book and I'll devote a post to some other time, but most people are likely more aware of the 1978 movie based upon it than the book itself. The movie is not that good, although one can still derive pleasure from it provided they are in the proper frame of mind. That is, if they are willing to use its ineptitude as fodder for entertainment. Admittedly, not everyone can do this.

My feelings about the movie have swung the gamut from being quite enamored with it to not being able to watch it anymore. In between, there was a period where I could revel in its badness as film entertainment, but I must have less patience because the last time I tried to watch it that way I turned it off in disgust. I was just a youngster when it came out and I can still vividly recall the "The Swarm is Coming!" advertisements leading up to the film's release. Then, when the film was released there were full-page ads proclaiming that "The Swarm Is Here!" NBC expanded the film by 40 minutes when they showed it in the 1980's and that's the first time I really got into it. I read the book after seeing it on NBC, and was disappointed that the book was so different from the movie.  For the purposes of this discussion, we will be looking at the 'Extended' version of the movie that was released on home video on both laserdisc and DVD. The movie was released to theaters at 116 minutes, whereas the longer version runs 155 minutes. The movie plays better in the shorter version, which is partly why I won't be discussing it. The main reason I won't be discussing it is that I no longer have a copy of the shorter version.

In the 1970's Irwin Allen was the king of disaster movies, having produced and co-directed such theatrical films and TV movies as THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1972), THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974), FLOOD! (1976, TV), FIRE! (1977, TV), HANGING BY A THREAD (1979, TV), BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1979) and THE SWARM (1978). Some of these films are good, most are only decent, and some are downright bad. None are boring, however, and for me, that's the important thing. Allen's formula for his theatrical films was to assemble a large cast of well-known ageing actors, place them in danger and then start killing them off. THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE is probably the only film in which this formula doesn't feel like a formula because the characters are more fully fleshed out than in any of the later films. Additionally, in Ronald Neame POSEIDON had the best director of any of the films made by Allen. INFERNO had John Gullermin, who did an okay to good job, but for THE SWARM Allen decided to do all of the directing himself.

THE SWARM boasts a pretty impressive cast, at least on paper: Michael Caine, Katherine Ross, Richard Widmark, Henry Fonda, Richard Chamberlain, Bradford Dillman, Slim Pickens, Lee Grant, Ben Johnson, Fred MacMurray, Olivia de Havilland, José Ferrer, Patty Duke and Cameron Mitchell. With a cast like that, you would think there would be a certain level of competency, but several of the performances are downright awful. Leading the charge is Michael Caine, who alternates between being utterly stone-faced and being in a teeth-clenching screaming rage. To be fair, the rest of the cast is not much better--only MacMurray, Fonda and de Haviland truly escape into the "decent" category. To be even fairer, the bad acting is actually excusable. See, the movie was directed by Allen himself, and as a director he makes a pretty good producer.

The plot concerns Africanized bees that threaten to take over America. Caine is a leading entomologist who gets caught up in the struggle after stumbling into an Army base that was wiped out by bees. Katherine Ross is the army doctor who survived the bee attack, and who ultimately becomes romantically involved with Caine. Widmark is the Army General who is tasked with defeating the bees by the President.

The film has two main faults. The first is a script full of bad dialogue. Or rather, I should say that the script is hopelessly outdated. At one point Katherine Ross says words to the effect of "Oh, I'm sad. So, very, very sad" while walking with Michael Caine, who also looks very sad to be stuck in the film. Second, the science depicted in the film is ridiculous.

While THE SWARM as film entertainment fails on most levels, it nevertheless does some things right. Two things, in fact. The music score by Jerry Goldsmith is truly great and is by far the most accomplished aspect of the movie. The scenes of the bees swarming in the skies are generally well done, such as during the build-up to the attack on the town:

Once the bees are at ground level, however, the results are not good. Imagine puffed rice being blown by big fans, intercut with actors running around with puffed rice glued to their bodies. Add to that some truly bad dialogue spoken poorly and you pretty much have the movie in a nutshell.

The scenes of mass destruction caused by the bees are generally poorly handled, with some shocking lapses in continuity thrown in for good measure. Consider the train crash that occurs late in the film (killing good old Fred MacMurray in the process). When the train derails on a curve it starts to tumble to the left:

Yet in the very next shot we see the train tumbling to the right. The interior and exterior is intercut two more times.

Sloppy, no?

Shortly after the train debacle, the bees attack a nuclear power plant, which looks like it was designed and built by the Krell (click on the pics to get a better look):

The bees attack and Richard Chamberlain runs around with puffed rice blowing in the air, and with some glued to him as well.

And then the plant explodes.

Now, exactly why the plant explodes is never made clear. One could surmise that the bees clogged something important. Or perhaps the bees planted explosives. Don't laugh. The bees are attributed with all types of human qualities over the course of the film--intelligence to coordinate attacks, revenge, and anger to name three.

Certain scenes are blocked so poorly that they can be amusing--or at least illustrative on how things shouldn't be done in films. For instance, early in the film, there is a discussion between Michael Caine, Richard Widmark and Bradford Dillman. They stand in a circle facing each other and proceed to have a heated discussion. The scenes starts statically, but a few seconds in the camera starts circling the actors as they take turns raising their voices and pointing fingers. It is as inorganic a moment in a film as you are likely to find, and I can't help but wonder if Allen wasn't inspired by Brian DePalma's use of the circling camera in CARRIE. It worked in that film in part because the audience was invested in what the characters were saying, and the swirling camera mirrored Carrie White's emotional state. In THE SWARM, the audience is most certainly not invested in what the characters are saying at this point in the movie, and the swirling character doesn't mirror anyone's state of anything save perhaps Bradford Dillman, who looks pretty befuddled throughout the scene.

I've gone over why I think THE SWARM is a poor movie, and I stand by the criticism (and abuse) I've dished out towards it. However, a few years ago I stumbled into a way for me to again enjoy the film. The movie fails on just about every level for modern movie entertainment, and that's the key to enjoying the film--taking away the modern expectations. If you stand back from the film and squint at it a bit it becomes clear that the film is in fact firmly in the 1950's monster movie mold.

Try watching it in black and white some time. It plays much better. In the context of a 1950's monster movie, all of a sudden the clunky dialogue scenes seem more at home--they are exactly what you would find in a B-level monster movie of the 50's. In fact, the more time that passes the easier it is to take it in this manner.

I don't for a second think that this was intentional, mind you. I am convinced that it was done with every intention of being 'current'. Allen was probably just making the movie the best way that he knew how to, and it turns out he had absolutely no idea how to handle actors. Left to flounder the majority of the actors do just that. It's debatable whether another director could have made a good movie out of THE SWARM using the same script. I doubt it myself but who knows?