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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.