Skip to main content

I told you before, Wolfman cannot drive a car.

The Monster Squad
(1987)

(SPOILERS) My reluctant response to The Monster Squad at the time of its release was that it wasn’t quite as clever or funny as I wanted it to be, the promise of The Goonies meets Ghostbusters with (effectively) the Universal horror monster roster only sporadically delivering on its potential (not that The Goonies and Ghostbusters are as funny as they want to be either, but you get the idea). I still think that’s the case, albeit now recognising the additional pleasures of nascent Shane Black stylings and obsessions, and the dedication of Fred Dekker in creating an aesthetic that sits comfortably with the pictures its riffing on and homaging.


The trouble with The Monster Squad is that it always felt like a movie whose affection and winkery weren't as effective or sustained as the arena Joe Dante was operating in during the same period. It possesses all the pieces to make a great movie but is less than the sum of its parts. Of course, anything said against The Monster Squad is regarded as blasphemy by those of a certain age, as it is with The Goonies, although Squad is undoubtedly the better movie of the two (Dekker joked at the time "At least our kids yell less than The Goonies. That makes The Monster Squad better right there'). Mention of The Goonies does draw attention to one of Squad's deficiencies, though. 


While Dekker was right to proclaim the relative lack of screaming kids as a virtue, The Goonies resoundingly eclipses The Monster Squad in the quality of its young cast. Only "My name is" Horace (Brent Chalem, who sadly died from pneumonia in 1997) – and he can't boast a scene as defining as his Goonies-equivalent Chunk's confessional, nor is Chalem's performance up there with Jeff Cohen's – and the diminutive Phoebe (Ashley Bank), with her disarming friendship with Tom Noonan's Frankenstein's Monster, stand out.


And that's another issue. Stan Winston’s creature designs are all-round marvellous, but aside from Frank's reluctant antagonist, who switches sides just as soon as he can, there's little personality to the monster's gallery. Gillman (Tom Woodruff Jr, later inside the Xenomorph throughout the '90s) does little aside from leaping out of manhole covers. 


The Mummy is beautifully visualised, but only really counts for a couple of sight gags (one in which he appears in Eugene's – Michael Faustino – bedroom closet, for no appreciable reason, the other the truly inspired bandage unravelling).  


There's a little more to Wolfman (Carl Thibault) by virtue of seeing him pre-transformation, his warnings to the police (disregarded as prank calls) and his final "Thank you" after too-cool-for-school-so-why's-he-hanging-with-this-lot Rudy (Ryan Lambert) shoots him with a silver bullet, but his main claim to fame is also an effects one; blown to pieces, he reassembles and returns to the fray.


EmilyNow, he's the one that fights Godzilla, right?
SeanDracula, mum.
EmilyThen which is the really tall one?
SeanThat's Godzilla.

And then there’s Count Dracula (Duncan Regehr, in a role Liam Neeson failed to win). He looks the part, and again there's a marvellously conceived set piece, in which he cuts a swathe through a rank of police officers (in one shot). And his delivery of "Give me the amulet, you BITCH!" is an effective counterpoint to Ripley's challenge of the Alien queen the previous year. But there's little accompanying personality. 


Dekker, in his wisdom, wanted to ditch the previous urbane charm and ladies’ man attraction ("I saw him as just an animal"), but if you do that, what are you left with? His scheme to destroy the amulet is fairly straightforward ("It’s clearly a nefarious plan. I just have no idea what it really is" suggested Decker self-effacingly on the commentary), although it’s unclear why he really needs his monster buddies, or how and when he found the time to call Sean's (Andre Gower) mum Emily (Joel Silver regular Mary Ellen Trainor), enquiring about Van Halen's diary and leaving his credentials as Mr Alucard (very Ed Wood, and suggestive of a sense of humour Regehr doesn't really bring).


That might have been a nice scene to see, as Dekker and Black missed a trick in not giving him more substance – perhaps related, the studio cut 13 minutes according to the director, because the suits didn’t want it to run more than 90 minutes, which 80 certainly isn't, and while I don't find the picture too rushed, it doesn’t really feel comfortably or confidently paced either; it just kind of presents itself, lacking peaks and troughs and markers, and then it's over. Dracula does at least make sure to call his compatriots "My friend" at any opportunity. There’s also his rather curious instruction to Frank: "If they do not co-operate, kill them" (why not give the order to kill them anyway? It’s the sort of thing he’d do).


SeanMarriage Counsellor – again? I thought you quit smoking.
DelSean. I love you dearly, but do me a favour. Put your basic lid on it.

Ironically, it's the peripheral characters who make the most impact. Or perhaps not, as Shane Black has always been a dab hand at portraying domestic strife. Sean’s family unit is falling apart at the seams, not yet at Joseph Hallenbeck levels but enough that Emily has a suitcase packed and hubby Detective Del Crenshaw (Stephen Macht) would rather answer calls about a werewolf than attend their marriage guidance counselling. Macht is particularly great in the weary cop role – you'd think he’d been playing them his entire career – and he forces Gower to raises his game in any scene they have together (notably on the roof, watching Groundhog Day Part 12) – the same is true with Gower and Trainor. 


HoraceMan, you sure know a lot about monsters.
Scary German GuyNow that you mention it, I suppose I do.

Some aspects of the picture have since proved controversial. I’m not sure why some suggest the Auschwitz past of Scary German (the instantly recognisable Leonard Cimino, who can boast DuneHudson Hawk and Waterworld amongst his appearances) might have been missed by younger viewers. I guess they might not have grasped the reference to his tattoo, foregrounded though it is. The question is whether it was really appropriate to the material, as it’s rather dropped in out of nowhere and might have been more meaningful if it was meant to contrast with serious monsters, rather than cartoon ones (The Keep-like). That said, it's a fairly unobtrusive reference, and one might be more concerned about X-Men's wholesale appropriation of the theme for giddy entertainment thrills (Magneto going berserk in Auschwitz and hunting Nazis is wicked cool). So yeah, on balance, Scary German guy is bitchin'. Probably.


SeanHe had to wear them, so you couldn't see his wolf dork.

Then there are the homophobic taunts ("fag", "homo"), used both by and aimed at the kids. Dekker has defended the languages as reflecting the reality of '80s school kids, which is true enough, but if authenticity was uppermost in his and Black's minds, why be so guarded with other words? Kids of the era weren't going around talking about "dorks" and "nards", except maybe as a direct result of The Monster Squad. What seems more likely is that, as with the domestic scene, the homophobic invective is a brashly youthful Black touch, one that can also be readily found in the likes of Lethal Weapon and Last Boy Scout (although both Gibson and Willis use such language in other, non-Black vehicles during that period). Generally speaking, and this is how I felt at the time, the cruder or crasser material ("If we pull this off, I’m gonna shit"; "See you later, band-aid breath") is less effective than the bursts of surrealism ("How’d that dog get up here anyway?" as a paw is extended during the pact scene).


Mr MetzgerScience is real. Monsters are not.
SeanWe don't know that, sir.

The language may also be a reflection of the divide the picture is trying to cross in appeal. How likely is it that a group of '80s teenagers should venerate classic era monster movies? Is that why Sean is given a Stephen King Rules t-shirt, to redress the balance somewhat? As Anne Bilson observed in her Film Yearbook Vol. 7 review "It is debatable as to whether the age group at which it is aimed will be familiar with the classic creature features from which the monsters are borrowed".


SeanI told you before, Wolfman cannot drive a car.
HoraceHe could if he had to.

That's likely the kind of thinking that held Universal in check when they envisaged their Dark Universe, updating both period and design and tropes so much that any reflection of their influences was buried. Here, Universal wouldn’t licence the classic likenesses, so Winston had to make each at least a little different. And while Black and Dekker may not quite take things to Dante levels, they are clearly revelling in the opportunity to reference lore to humorous effect ("More a clever comic parody than a jokey pastiche" said Nigel Floyd in Time Out).


I particularly liked the Squad (they would surely have been Club if not for the early '80s Monster Club) debating the second way to kill a werewolf when Rudy draws a blank ("Old age?"), attacking Dracula with a slice of garlic pizza, fleeing to a church ("Perfect, monsters hate religious stuff"), Dracula blowing up their tree house (just because: Dracula's unlikely to ever do that again in any medium) and the more '50s sci-fi arrival of the military at the end ("Dear Army Guys. Come Quick. There are monsters. Eugene"), just as the danger has passed. The problems encountered with Patrick's bimbo sister (Lisa Fuller) sending the monsters to limbo ("You’re not a virgin, are you?") could be seen coming a mile off, but it's curious none of the boys even had the conversation about one of them speaking the incantation (at no point is gender prescribed). Also thrown in is a very meta Hardy Boys reference (Black again, having been an avid fan:"Haven’t you read the Hardy Boys? You pull some levers down and a door opens").


PhoebeDon't go. Don’t go away.

The vortex, of course, sucks in poor Frankenstein’s monster too ("Bo-gus"), and the scenes with Frank are some of the few where the picture elicits any pathos. That's equally down to Noonan (who, being method, never let the kids see him without makeup) and Bank, whose responses appear completely genuine. The big vortex climax was done better by Evil Dead II on a shoestring that same year, although that was played for laughs whereas here Frank's farewell is compellingly sad. 


DelThe problem is, 2,000-year-old dead guys do not get up and walk away by themselves.

The Monster Squad cost $12m but took only $3.8m, failing to even make the Top 10 on its opening weekend (Black commented "…it wasn’t just that it wasn’t a hit – it was a huge failure. No one saw it. I don’t know how on earth it caught on years later", which suggests an odd disconnect with how home video worked back then, being as it was the fertile afterlife of many a flop). Dekker opined that it pretty much did for his directorial career, Robocop 3 being the final nail in the coffin. He found Peter Hyams, who was producer, a continual source of interference during the production, but it at least looks great thanks to Bradford May’s cinematography (mostly a TV lenser, ironically). 


If Hyams had wanted to interfere, he ought to have ejected the obligatory '80s montage sequence (to Rock to you Drop). Rob Cohen was also a producer, and for a while was attached to direct a Platinum Dunes remake that thankfully came to nothing. A sequel was suggested to Black during an interview, and while the quote received a lot of coverage, he didn’t sound entirely convinced. Probably rightly so, although if the It sequel does well, anything could happen. 


The Monster Squad definitely occupies Goonies-esque nostalgia status impervious to critical thinking, as witnessed by its resurgence following an Alamo Drafthouse cast reunion and screening in 2006 and subsequent DVD release; for those who saw it at the right time, it's an unqualified classic (Ryan Gosling being one, of whom Black noted "He couldn’t even cite the other movies I’d done. He was just fixated upon that one"). I’d be more moderate in my praise, less effusive than Kim Newman even, who called it "a wholly charming homage to the great days of Universal and Hammer" in Nightmare Movies. It is charming, but the lack of a truly memorable young cast – probably not helped by the excising of those thirteen minutes – prevent it from being wholly so.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …