The Thing (1982)

If you went to the movies in 1982, you probably heard of a little flick called E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. But around that same time, you might have overlooked another movie featuring an alien that's gone on to become a cult classic: John Carpenter's The Thing. A remake of the 1951 sci-fi movie The Thing From Another World (which itself was based on John W. Campbell's short story "Who Goes There?"), the movie was a box office failure, thanks to both the E.T. phenomenon and a series of unfortunately bad reviews. However, time has been kind to The Thing, as it has been hailed by fans of both the sci-fi and horror genres as an underrated classic.

Our film begins in the winter of 1982, in the middle of the frozen wasteland of Antarctica. Alone and cut off from the rest of the world, the lives of an American science expedition are interrupted by gunfire, coming from a group of Norwegians with cabin fever shooting at a dog. Unfortunately, none of the Americans have any idea what's going on, as the Norwegians accidentally blow up their helicopter and are shot dead by Garry (Donald Moffat), the station commander. The dog becomes friendly with Clark (Richard Masur), the group's animal handler, but strange things are afoot at the Circle K. (Hooray for Bill & Ted references!)

Confused, helicopter pilot MacReady (Kurt Russell) and Dr. Copper (Richard A. Sysart) decide to check out the Norwegian camp. With a snowstorm beginning to close in, MacReady and Cooper find the camp destroyed, everything apparently dead. They gather anything they can salvage, and head back to their home base. As the temperature begins to fall, the team is surprised by an unwanted visitor, as the Norwegians dog begins to mutate before finally being killed. A second expedition to the Norwegian camp reveals something similar to a flying saucer, buried under the ice for an estimated 100,000 years. The group determines that the dog was not of this world, and that their shape-shifting visitor has the ability to infect any living thing it comes into contact with. Paranoia rips through the station, as each man questions the actions of those around him. Who is human, and who is The Thing? And just who will survive?

The Thing is great, no bones about it. The first installment in what director Carpenter calls his "Apocalypse Trilogy" (the other two installments being 1987's Prince of Darkness and 1995's In the Mouth of Madness), The Thing is a study in contrasts. Long periods of unnerving silence are punctuated by brief flashes of grotesque horror. With The Thing, Carpenter shows exactly how to illicit primal terror from a viewer. He draws things out for what seems like forever, only to have all hell break loose for just a few moments before returning to that quiet suspense.

Personally, I found The Thing be just as good as its closest contemporary, the original Alien. (Your mileage may vary, of course.) Bill Lancaster's great screenplay is brilliantly humorless, making itself seem like the darkest dark humor ever, with the unexpected moments of violence, and the bickering scientists never managing to actually accomplish anything. The large ensemble cast are all great, with notable highlights coming from Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley (yes, that Wilford Brimley), and Keith David, and Ennio Morricone's minimalist score is reminiscent of many of Carpenter's scores in being bizarre, creepy, and very understated.

Rob Bottin's special effects also stand up and demand to be noticed. Simultaneously mesmerizing and disgusting, the practical effects hold up quite well in today's CGI-dependent Hollywood. They only appear a few times, but his gory creations are some of the film's most memorable moments. From a body opening up and biting off a doctor's arms, to a head ripping itself from its body before growing spider-like legs and running away, the gruesome effects are still repulsive and shocking, even by today's standards.

Even if the movie doesn't have much in the department of social commentary like other Carpenter movies (They Live, for example), it still works as an effectively scary movie. Great special effects, good actors, and several memorable moments abound, so I'll give The Thing a much-deserved four stars. If you get in the mood for an alien splatter movie or a great cult classic, I recommend The Thing; I think you'll enjoy it.

Final Rating: ****

Halloween (1978)

If you're both a fan of the horror genre and a self-professed "child of the '80s" like yours truly, then you probably remember the innumerable slasher films released during the decade of excess. From classics like the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises to lesser-known gems like April Fool's Day and Prom Night, it seems like there were hundreds of these flicks released during the '80s.

But while the "golden age of slashers" was kick-started by the original Friday the 13th in 1980, the sub-genre's basic formula was truly defined by John Carpenter's 1978 opus Halloween. Often credited as the father of all slasher movies, Halloween's legacy as one of the true genre classics has been tarnished somewhat by the seven inferior sequels that have followed it between 1981 and 2002. But no matter, because Halloween is a damn fine horror movie.

Our tale of terror takes us to the sleepy Illinois town of Haddonfield, circa Halloween 1978. A young man named Michael Myers (Nick Castle) has escaped from Smith's Grove Sanitarium, where he had been incarcerated for murdering his sister as a six-year-old. Returning to Haddonfield after spending fifteen years in Smith's Grove, he acquires a mask and set of knives from the local hardware store, before hunting down a quarry to satisfy his bloodlust.

He soon discovers the perfect prey in a trio of friends: socially awkward babysitter Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), horny cheerleader Lynda Vanderklok (P.J. Soles), and the equally horny smart-aleck tomboy Annie Brackett (Nancy Loomis). Hot on Michael's trail is his psychiatrist, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who is the only one who understands how truly evil his patient is. Dr. Loomis seeks to prevent Michael's rampage, and with the help of the local sheriff (Charles Cyphers), he attempts to find and stop Michael before he can kill again.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest devotee of the Halloween franchise. It's not that I dislike the franchise or anything, but I'm just more of a Freddy and Jason person. However, I can appreciate a good movie when I see it, and Halloween is awesome. Moviegoers back in the '70s must have realized that too, because the movie racked up 47 million dollars and a spot as one of the highest-grossing independent films ever. Thanks to the movie's small budget, somewhere in the neighborhood of 325,000 dollars, Halloween is a minimalist affair. But this actually works in the movie's favor, allowing the crew to get a little more inventive with how the movie is made instead of relying upon special effects to handle it for them.

Director John Carpenter doesn't let the meager budget get in his way, as he manages to do a fantastic job. Take the film's prologue, for example. Carpenter opens the film with an amazing five-minute Steadicam sequence, actually three shots carefully edited together to create one long one. It serves as a long point-of-view shot, as we see through someone's mask-covered eyes as he enters sneaks into a house and hacks a young woman to death with a butcher knife, before running into the front yard and having the mask pulled off. The camera spins around to show us that the murderer is none other than a six-year-old boy in a clown costume. I thought it was a perfect opening scene, because it exemplifies the movie's entire attitude. You know something is going to happen, but you don't know how and you don't know when. You just know that when it does happen, somebody's gonna end up in a world of pain and we're gonna be privy to every second of it. The movie's concluding seconds are also show this, as we get a montage of all the important locations we've seen during the movie. These don't show where Michael could be, but where he has been. Michael was pretty much everywhere, like an evil that simply could not be escaped.

There are also two very excellent moments with Michael near the end of the movie. Both of them are simple, but both of them are truly frightening. In one, the Laurie character has discovered all of her friends dead, and in her hysteria, she begins sobbing with her back to an open door, the darkened room it leads to completely devoid of light. And ever so slowly, the lifeless features of Michael's mask slowly take form in the shadows behind Laurie, almost as if Michael was appearing out of thin air. We see, ten minutes after this, the second scene I'm referring to. Laurie believes she's gotten the better of Michael, quietly trying to catch her breath and compose herself in the camera's foreground. Michael lies motionless in the background for a few moments before quickly, unexpectedly sitting up and staring at Laurie with those black, soulless eyes. If Michael Myers were a shark, those two moments would be where they cued up the theme song from Jaws.

And on the topic of music, how about Carpenter's score? If one thing can be agreed upon in regards to Halloween, it's that the music composed by Carpenter (who listed the fictitious Bowling Green Philharmonic Orchestra in the credits as the music's "performers") is one of the movie's strongest assets. Using only a piano and a synthesizer, Carpenter has created the genre's most iconic, enduring scores. The music is just as simplistic as the rest of the movie, but it is nothing short of haunting, taking what would be mundane scenes and making them terrifying. Seriously, the movie would only be half as scary, if that, without the music. Go rent the movie and watch it with the volume turned down if you don't believe me.

Carpenter's fingerprints are all over this bad boy, as he and frequent collaborator Debra Hill co-wrote the screenplay too. I don't believe anyone is ever going to argue that the script for Halloween deserved any awards, but it does have some great dialogue and some great scenes, as well as two great horror movie characters in Michael Myers and Dr. Sam Loomis. Their story is very much a Van Helsing tale set in 1970s suburbia. But unlike the fearless Van Helsing, who is sure of himself and knows exactly how to defeat the vampire menace, Dr. Loomis is unsure of just how to stop Michael. And never let it be said that Dr. Loomis does not know fear, because it sure looks to me like he does. While the good doctor doesn't fear for his own life, he instead fears for the lives Michael might take instead. And if he can't stop Michael, he's going to at least try to make sure Michael is slowed down. And that's a pretty good hero, if you ask me.

Michael, on the other hand, is pure evil. He is listed as "The Shape" in the credits and is referred to as the boogeyman throughout the actual movie, both fair assessments of the character. Michael might have the shape of a man, but inside, he's completely soulless. His plain white mask is emotionless, with deep black eyes that have no life inside them. He's just a heartless, soulless killing machine. While the character's motivations have been brought up in the sequels, Michael's a million times scarier when he has no motivation. A killer that murders his victims just for the sake of it is, to me, much more frightening than one that has some sort of lame excuse. If Donald Pleasence ran up to me one day and said, "Look, there's this whackjob that killed his sister for no reason when he was a kid, and he busted out of the loony bin last night and he's gonna kill half the town and I don't know why, and we're all pretty screwed if we don't find him and stop him right the hell now," I'd be on the first plane to Timbuktu until the whole thing blew over.

The other characters, meanwhile, are typical slasher movie characters. Laurie is your standard "Final Girl," the intelligent stick in the mud that is the complete opposite of her friends. She isn't a sex-addicted drunk like the others, and unlike her friends, she actually gets to defend herself instead of getting killed due to making stupid decisions. Annie and Lynda, on the other hand, are our comic relief for the evening. Neither of them are all that bright; Lynda would rather drink beer, have sex with her super-annoying boyfriend Bob (played by John Michael Graham), and use the word "totally" in every sentence whether she needs to or not, while Annie has no problem pawning the child she's babysitting off on Laurie so she can go get laid. Not only that, but at one point, she feels the need to strip down to nothing but her skivvies because she spilled a little something on her shirt. Who does that?

Last but not least is the cast. Jamie Lee Curtis does a wonderful job as Laurie, despite not having a whole lot demanded of her outside of acting nerdy before acting scared out of her mind. You'd never notice that this was only her first movie by the way she holds the screen, and she proves to be deserving of the "Scream Queen" title that was bestowed upon her. Nancy Loomis and P.J. Soles, meanwhile, play characters that are a little annoying and kinda stupid, but are still likable and entertaining in their own ways. Loomis and Soles look like they're having a lot of fun playing a pair of airheads, so I won't so I won't fault them for that.

But I believe it goes without saying that the true stars of the movie are Donald Pleasence and Nick Castle. This is their movie, and both of them are excellent. Castle stays mostly in the background and in the shadows for the majority of the movie, but when he gets to stand front and center, he has an intimidating, almost inhuman presence that really fits the character. Pleasence, the movie's most accomplished actor, is pitch perfect as Dr. Loomis. His dialogue would probably sound pretentious if delivered by anyone else, but Pleasence delivers them with a dramatic sense of urgency, as if every second that passes while Michael is loose is a second that moves us closer to the end of the world.

Halloween has earned a reputation as being one of the horror genre's most enduring modern classics. A remake and bunch of grossly inferior sequels are never going to change that. It's a brilliant movie, and an important benchmark in the horror genre. And thirty years after its initial release, it still holds up. That's why I'm so bummed that newer generations of horror fans that have yet to see it only know of the most recent entries in the franchise. So yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that if you haven't seen Halloween, what's the deal? Why not? Halloween isn't flawless, but it's very, very close. So I'm giving it four and a half stars and a hearty seal of approval. Go check it out, and don't let the boogeyman get you while you're out trick or treating.

Final Rating: ****½

Haggard (2003)

The reality show trend that rules the entertainment world has created a new kind of celebrity: people who are known for just being themselves. As an example, cast members from the controversial MTV stunt show Jackass seemed to pop up everywhere following the show's successful jump to the big screen in 2002. Jackass ringleader Johnny Knoxville had a starring role in the big-screen adaptation of The Dukes of Hazzard along with major supporting roles in Men in Black 2 and the remake of Walking Tall, while Chris Pontius and Steve-O had their own nature show, Wildboyz, on MTV2. Meanwhile, skateboarding virtuoso Bam Margera made a name for himself not only through Jackass, but through a series of underground skateboarding videos and his show Viva La Bam. He's even made his own movie. That direct-to-video flick, Haggard, just may be the weirdest vanity project ever made.

Ryan (Ryan Dunn) can't catch any breaks. He's completely obsessed with his cheating ex-girlfriend Glauren (Jenn Rivell), even though their relationship is long over. Ryan just refuses to let go, and incessantly tries to push his way back into her life. When he discovers that Glauren has hooked up with a sleazy headbanger named Hellboy (Rake Yohn), he absolutely snaps. He becomes so infuriated that he recruits his friends Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) to help give him some closure on things. Valo and Falcone think he's crazy, but when he offers them each a hundred dollars to vandalize her house, they can't say no.

In the meantime, Ryan flirts with insanity. He has a run-in with a police officer (Tony Hawk) while blowing off steam, he frquently butts head with his roommate (Don Vito), and even gets stabbed in the eye with a fork. Even after Ryan commissions Valo and Falcone to break into Glauren's house and find concrete proof of her indiscretions, they continue to push their friend into finally moving on for good.

Part comedy, part music video, and part skateboarding exhibition, Haggard is a true oddity. The film was directed, edited, co-starred, and co-written by Margera, and he has put together a quite bizarre piece of work with this one. If Adam Sandler's films are vanity pieces, then Haggard is an insanity piece. The cast is made up almost entirely of Margera's friends and relatives, features extensive skateboarding montages, and is set to music from bands that Margera is involved with or religiously listens to. Margera's character is even named after Ville Valo, the lead singer of Finnish rock band HIM, Margera's favorite band. All of this makes Haggard seem like little more than an elaborate home video. Yet, when the film can stick to the main story, which seems to run for only about half of the movie's 96-minute running time, Haggard is actually quite entertaining.

Dunn's acting is very good, considering Haggard is the first movie that doesn't require him to do insane stunts. His character is easy to identify with, and even feel sorry for. Meanwhile, Margera's acting is decent at best, but his ability for writing (he co-wrote the movie with Dicamillo and Chris Aspité) and directing shine. Naturally, he takes time to show off his skateboarding prowess. While it may fit in perfectly with the chase scene, the various montages of him skateboarding really don't fit in with the rest of the movie.

However, Margera is a far better director than he has any right to be. The film boasts rich colors and gorgeous cinematography courtesy of long-time Margera collaborator Joseph Frantz, and though the time-lapse effect is far too overused, the editing keeps the movie at a fast pace so nothing really drags.

The third member of the movie's main trio, Dicamillo, is the movie's true comic relief. He primarily plays Falcone, but shows his comedic talent with no less than four other minor roles. He steals many scenes with his frantic delivery, and gives us many memorable lines and moments. Also worth noting are Chris Raab and Margera's uncle Don Vito, both of whom turn in hilarious performances as Falcone's weirdo cousin and Ryan's hedonistic roommate respectively.

The movie contains some funny and insane moments, and like Jackass, the viewer finds themselves laughing in spite of themselves. Comparable to an Kevin Smith film on LSD, Haggard is a low-budget independent movie that actually does something different, and is all the better for it. Haggard is one of those films which has no right to be as good as it is, but is light-years better than anyone would ever expect. It's definitely cheap, both in production and execution, but it contains quite a bit of energy (which is helped by funny cameos from various pro skateboarders, as well as a killer soundtrack) and has some legitimately funny jokes.

If Margera could have cut back on all the skateboarding and musical montages, it could have been the next Clerks. I mean, it seems like at least sixty percent of the movie is just meant to show off that Margera can skateboard and use time-lapse photography equipment. As it is now, the movie is simply an oddity that I doubt will gain much of an audience outside of diehard fans of Margera's crew. However, I recommend it if you're at all interested in seeing a group of former Jackass cast members make an actual movie, if you're a fan of independent comedies, or if just need a way to kill some time and have a few laughs for an hour and a half.

Final Rating: ***

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

In my Night of the Living Dead review, I mentioned that it was the first movie that came to my mind when I thought of great Creature Feature movies. If you're reading this, you've stumbled upon the second movie that comes to my mind: a little movie called The Return of the Living Dead. Released in 1985, it beat George Romero's Day of the Dead as the zombie movie of choice that year, and has become one of the more popular cult classics of the last twenty years. How well does it hold up? We'll see.

Freddy (Thom Mathews) has just started a new job at a medical supply company, conveniently located near a rundown old cemetery, and Frank (James Karen), a fellow co-worker, is showing him the ropes on his first night. After their boss, Burt (Clu Gulager), leaves for the night, Frank starts telling Freddy a story about how Night of the Living Dead was based on a true incident. The story goes that a chemical spill in a military hospital revived the bodies in the morgue, and as part of the coverup, the government forced the makers of Night of the Living Dead to change various bits and pieces of the movie so their story wouldn't match what really happened.

Naturally, Freddy thinks Frank is full of crap. Frank shushes him, telling him that some canisters that hold the re-animated bodies are in the basement. He goes on to explain that the government took all the bodies from the morgue, stored them in big oil-drum canisters, and shipped them off to a research facility. Due to a snafu in the paperwork, a few of the canisters were dropped off at the medical supply company instead. Frank takes Freddy down to the basement to prove it, and he smacks one of the canisters to show how strong they are. This proves to be a horrible mistake, as the canister cracks open, and a burst of noxious chemicals spew into their faces.

The chemicals end up re-animating a "split dog" and some butterflies, as well as a cadaver locked in cold storage. They freak out, eventually calling Burt to help them deal with the cadaver. Burt suggests hitting it in the brain, since it worked in every other zombie movie. Stabbing it in the head with a pickax and sawing its head off don't work, so they eventually decide to hack the body into pieces and take them to Ernie (Don Calfa), who works at the mortuary next door. Why? The mortuary happens to have a cremation furnace, that's why. They convince Ernie to burn what's left of the cadaver, but the smoke from the furnace pumps into the nearby cemetery, where Freddy's girlfriend Tina (Beverly Randolph) and a group of their friends are partying. The smoke re-animates the dead bodies in the cemetery, unleashing an army of brain-eating zombies that Freddy and his friends must escape.

Honestly, The Return of the Living Dead is some of the most fun I've ever had watching a movie. It's got lots of great looking makeup effects, and it has a perfect combination of both horror and humor. It serves as an homage to classic zombie movies of the past, but has fun at their expense as well. That can be obviously seen in a moment where Burt, Freddy, and Frank realize that their pickax-to-the-brain attack on the cadaver didn't work. Frank's response: "But it worked in the movie!"

The acting is better thane expected as well. James Karen and Thom Mathews turn in good performances (so good they brought them back for the sequel as extremely similar characters), as do Don Calfa and Clu Gulager. Almost all of the punks, especially Miguel Núñez and the late Mark Venturini, are great as well. However, I was less than impressed with Beverly Randolph, but that's just a minor gripe.

 The zombie makeup is excellent, especially for a low-budget movie from the mid-80s (the best examples being the Tarman and the Half-Lady). They're also different from the slow-moving, lumbering zombies that became the norm over the years. These suckers can run, talk, and they're clever too. It's definitely a nice breath of fresh air. The punk element is a nice addition as well, just because all the punk songs on the soundtrack make the movie that much cooler. Plus there's one punk, played by Linnea Quigley, that's absolutely naked in 98 percent of her scenes. As you can imagine, she became a B-movie "Scream Queen" thanks to the role.

Overall, I'll give The Return of the Living Dead a full five stars for being one of my all-time favorite movies. A fine mixture of dark humor and horror with great one-liners, an awesome soundtrack, and a totally unexpected ending, I recommend it for fans of both zombie movies and low-budget B-movie thrill rides.

Final Rating: *****

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Name one zombie movie. C'mon, just name one. If you're anything like me, the first one to come to mind was probably Night of the Living Dead. A staple of late-night Creature Feature Shows, it certainly wasn't the first zombie movie, but it brought them into the limelight. Since then, zombies have become one of the most popular sub-genres of horror, appearing in everything from movies to video games. Directed by an aspiring Pittsburgh filmmaker named George Romero, Night of the Living Dead has become one of the most enduring, beloved, and imitated classics of horror, and made its director a legend. So enough ballyhoo, let's get to the review. (Hey, that rhymed. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.)

The movie's plot is astoundingly simple. We begin, appropriately enough, at a cemetery in the middle of nowhere, where bickering siblings Barbara (Judith O'Dea) and Johnny (Russell Streiner) arrive to put flowers on the grave of their father. As Johnny teases his sister, they're attacked by a pale-faced man (Bill Hinzman) who they assume either drunk, crazy, or both. Barbara flees after the man bashes Johnny's head against a tombstone, eventually arriving at a secluded farmhouse. Shortly thereafter, a man named Ben (Duane Jones) shows up in a stolen truck, and he begins to barricade the house to protect them from the growing number of zombies outside. They find a band of five survivors hidden in the basement: young couple Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley), and the Cooper family, Harry (Karl Hardman), Helen (Marilyn Eastman), and their injured daughter Karen (Kyra Schon). The panic-stricken group must now defend themselves from not only a veritable army of flesh-eating ghouls, but from the growing tension and cabin fever inside the house.

The first chapter of what's known as Romero's "Dead Trilogy" (the other parts being 1978's Dawn of the Dead and 1986's Day of the Dead), Night of the Living Dead has spent the last four decades cementing its reputation as one of the true shining stars of the horror genre. The movie is also a prime example of a movie that has no humor (outside of one throwaway line), but rather paints a bleak portrait of society. George Romero's "Dead" movies have always been known for their underlying social commentaries, and Night is no different. Though he was probably cast just because he was the best actor to audition for the role, having Duane Jones, an African-American, as the lead actor surrounded by a cast of Caucasians seemingly gives the movie a condemning outlook on racism. Jones's character takes charge of the situation almost immediately, a move which causes him to butt heads with Karl Hardman's antagonistic, mean-spirited Harry. And I don't want to give away the ending, but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that it had a very "lynch mob" type of feeling to it.

When it's not making any kind of commentary on society, the script has consistently realistic dialogue, a good lesson for horror filmmakers. The genre is an extension of the fantasy realm, and to that extent, excuses often ridiculous dialogue. However, Romero shows us a realism that enhances the fear of the film. Yeah, the characters make the dumb moves associated with horror movies, but the characters actually react to said dumb moves. Though some of my fellow critics and moviegoers may disagree, the movie is visually astounding as well. The gritty look of the movie adds to the movie's claustrophobia, as if the zombies are around the corner at all times.

Of course, such illusions make the film a more frightening experience, and that's just the point. Shot in black and white with stark, natural lighting, the movie's lack of color enhances the movie's frightening atmosphere. Shadows appear everywhere, and the movie looks almost unreal. I can't say so for sure, but it's almost as if Romero meant to make the movie with a chiaroscuro style, to give the movie an unreal vibe that makes it that much more terrifying. Romero's direction is also superb. Shot in black and white with stark, natural lighting, the movie's lack of color enhances the movie's frightening atmosphere. Shadows appear everywhere, and the movie looks almost unreal. I can't say so for sure, but it's almost as if Romero meant to make the movie with a chiaroscuro style, to give the movie an unreal vibe that makes it that much more frightening.

The actors are also up to the task required of them. Duane Jones (a brave bit of casting, considering black leading men were few and far between at the time) and Karl Hardman are wonderful as the constantly clashing Ben and Harry, but on the other hand, I could take or leave Judith O'Dea's character Barbara. Her nearly-comatose, always-whining character is insanely annoying, though I'm sure that was the point. Barbara is almost like a toddler, and she often gets in the way of something more important. I found it to be an interesting dynamic compared to the rest of the cast. Barbara sits around and mopes all the time, while the other characters actually try to survive. It's almost as if she's resigned herself to the fact that like it or not, they're all screwed.

Night of the Living Dead is a masterpiece, which still holds up under today's standards. Romero takes an intense social commentary, fine acting, and graphic violence and crams them into ninety-six minutes, creating one of the most influential and important films of the twentieth century. If you have seen it, watch it again. If you haven't seen it, why not? Despite four decades having passed since its first release, it holds up as a true classic, one which leaves an indelible mark on modern cinema as we know it. 

Final Rating: ****½