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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.