The Last Picture Blog

Videodrome: The Erotic Violence

2012-02-13T16:21:00.000-08:00

I saw David Cronenberg's Videodrome (starring James Woods and Deborah Harry) when I was about 14. To say it influenced some of my ideas and sexual leanings is probably a bit of an understatement. Looking back at my life now, I can see hints of what the movie touched upon in my own fiction writing and the things that fascinate me. Did the movie bring this out in me, or to it introduce it to me? Probably a bit of both.

The film's plot is fairly complicated. Max (Woods) runs a small cable station. He comes across a broadcast signal showing some violence and torture. Max is convinced this is what his station needs as he has grown tired of showing softcore porn. With the help of a studio hand, they determine that the broadcast is probably coming out of Malaysia, and what it shows is something that is thought to be simulated snuff television. Max's station starts pirating this feed.

While defending his station's choice of programming, he gets into a debate with Nicki (Harry), who is a psychiatrist. When she sees one of the Videodrome programs she gets very aroused and they end up having sex while watching it. Things get weirder as they find out that the program is not broadcasting from Malaysia but their own city, and Nicki goes in for an audition. Oh, it's also not simulated snuff, either. It's real, and it's a political and social movement that is behind it. The goal? Giving brain tumors to scum who like this sort of thing via the images being broadcast. You honestly have to see it to fully understand what is being conveyed, but if you know Cronenberg's work, you know where it is going.

Snuff. S&M. Brain tumors via video transmissions. For a young teen, this was gold (I even had the poster hanging on my wall). Watching the film felt forbidden. Seeing Harry burn her breast with a cigarette was part cringe-worthy and very erotic, and seeing her lips bubble out of the television set was nothing short of amazing. It was a film unlike any other at the time, and it has yet to be surpassed. It was probably also the first film I watched that clued me in to the power of transgression and subversion when it came to film.

I have no doubt this film influenced my writing and much of the way I see the world. I study the power of images on film. I delve into that world of pain and pleasure and what it means to the psyche. I can't say for certain whether or not those ideas were always in me or this film introduced them, but I can say that the film gave everything an incredibly vivid starting point and laid a foundation that is still being explored to this day. I've spoken to a few others who have found this film to be highly influential. Each of us has our own moments we can vividly recall. Each of us is convinced that Cronenberg was well ahead of his time, as the Internet has gone on to prove. Perhaps it wasn't the best film for a young teen to see, but I am very glad I saw it.

The Naughty Shutter -- Filmed in Nudiscope!

2012-01-21T08:35:00.000-08:00

You would think that a movie that bills itself as the "laugh riot of the century" and features "daring nudes on the loose" while filmed in "Nudiscope" would be one incredible piece of 1960s-era cinema.

You would be horribly wrong.

While working on my upcoming film review book, I came across this gem, and had to watch it. It was only about 55 minutes. How bad could it be?

Automobile accident bad. I could not look away from the wreck. No onscreen dialogue. A narrator who seemed to be making things up on the fly. A plot that made little sense. What it did have was plenty of female nudity. Why? Because it was the only way people would see this thing.

The nudity starts at a burlesque show in a scene that goes on for far too long. From there we are introduced to a nudist colony of three that has taken up residence in a strange hotel and a camera that takes pictures of people in the raw (unless they are already nude -- then it somehow puts clothes on them). The possession of that camera is the film's driving factor.

I'm all for female nudity. The female form is nature at its finest. To put it in such a film, however, does a total disservice to women everywhere. The one good thing I can say about the movie is that the women featured are real looking women with curves. Compare that to the nudity in films today, and you can see what a difference fifty years makes.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did not get this film for free. Thank the Gods.

Something Buggy This Way Comes

2012-01-09T06:11:00.000-08:00

I recently watched Bug, and based on the talent involved I was really expecting something much better. William Friedkin directed it. Ashley Judd and Harry Connick, Jr. star in it. Those aren't bad names to have attached to a project. So why I did I think this failed so badly?

I have two opinions when it comes to that. First, and this irritated me to no end, it was promoted as a horror movie, and it is anything but that. It does have horrific elements to it, but it is a primarily a movie about paranoia and mental illness. Yes, these can be elements in a horror movie, but here they aren't handled that way. That was annoying, but it didn't sink the picture. I put little stock in how a movie is promoted, other than to say when it is promoted like this one the studio obviously doesn't know how to handle it.

What really annoyed me is that by the end of the film I had to ask myself what was the point behind it. It seemed like a lot of nothing to get to nowhere. The end left me shrugging and wondering what else I could've done with my time.

If you read the comments and reviews on IMDB, you'd get the idea that this film is "not for the faint of heart." I'm pretty sure the only people who would find this disturbing are those whose only viewing material prior to this film was QVC. There is nothing truly bothersome in it, and while one character does do some self-dentistry, it is nothing that hasn't been seen before ... and better.

Bug ends up being a wonderful premise done very poorly. If lesser-knowns were attached to it, I think it actually may have been better as more risks would've been taken. Instead, it is a project that has "movie of the week" written all over it.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: The studio did not send me this film, but a co-worker did lend it to me.

Poontang Plenty

2012-01-08T20:28:00.000-08:00

1966 was a fucked up time in America. Hippies were everywhere, dumping LSD into water supplies and bringing dirty feet into stores from NJ to CA. If there was one thing more out of place than a square in a suit it was The Girl From S.I.N., a thoroughly perplexing bit of filmmaking from a script that could only be written by the thirteen-year-old boy in all of us.

Agent 0069, Poontang Plenty, is a female vixen who gets nude at the drop of a hat and knows all kinds of poisons and martial arts. She works for this guy who is supposed to look Asian, and he's having her get the formula for invisibility. None of that really matters, though, as this film is just one big excuse for women to get naked. That "plot" and lack of clothes is not what makes this film seem like a fish out of water, however. It's the fact that it is 1966 and this is shot in black and white and is entirely narrated. That's right. There's not a bit of onscreen dialogue. Just music and narration. Call me old fashioned, but I like my characters to actually speak.

How director C. Davis Smith convinced Joyana (Poontang Plenty) and the other females in the film to strip down is beyond me. I'm even more stunned that he convinced Joyana to suck on some guy's toe in the opening sequence. Sure, she's got a mouthful of champagne that she dribbles down it, but still. It seems kind of out of place in the movie and a bit gross. Hygiene was not a big deal in the 1960s, otherwise Woodstock would've never happened.

I can't think of one reason one would have to watch this. Nudity is found in abundance on the Internet and by peeping through your neighbor's window. Deadly female agents are in far better movies and television shows. Nobody cares to see movies entirely of narration, either, unless you are a shut-in bothered by people's "talking voices." So why did I watch it? I am including it in a book I'm writing, so I had to. Was it worth it? Hell no, but it will make for a fun write-up.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did not get this movie for free, and if you are bold enough to click on the link, I may actually make a commission off it. Don't say I didn't warn you, though.

The Kingdom of Survival

2011-12-09T06:06:00.001-08:00

Exciting news, fans of documentaries. I received a message via the Facebook that The Kingdom of Survival, by pirate M.A. Littler (whom I interviewed for Z Magazine a while back), will be available 12/10/11. It includes "tons of subversive bonus footage" and will be sold at a "reduced X-Mas season price." Get it while you can. I've seen the film. It is worth it at full price. Hell, get one for your conservative relatives, too. Tell them it's a Tea Party thing. They may be stunned by how much they agree with some of the ideas put forth.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I was given this film to review quite some time ago. Links should not get me a commission.

Orgy of the Dead -- Best Movie Title Ever

2011-12-07T20:27:00.000-08:00

Okay, yes this film is from 1965, and yes Ed Wood Jr. wrote it, but the title -- it's great. If Orgy of the Dead was released today I'd see it on title alone. Of course, if this were the film that was released, I'd be disappointed because this is the usual Wood-style mess.

To be clear, Wood wrote it (and the book it was based on). A.C. Stephen (really Stephen C. Apostolof) directed it. It is, for all intent and purpose, a Wood film. Criswell is in it! Come on.

I've seen the film ... once. I was intrigued by the title. I knew a little of the plot ... or what was said to be the plot. (Please don't ask me to explain.) What I got was a movie with a really cool title followed by the most disjointed and boring mess you could have in a film that features several topless ladies. There's a graveyard. A werewolf. I don't know. I think alcohol was key in the creation of this story.

Orgy of the Dead is one of those films where the only thing going for it is the title. I'm sure it suckered quite a few people into seeing it at the time it was released. I knew better than to think it would be good, but the title intrigued me so much that I had to take a gander at it. To be quite honest, it's such a wreck I kind of want to read the book, too, but I don't feel like paying a premium price for it.

Ed Wood Jr. and crew are an acquired taste. There are moments of surreal brilliance, but they are accidental and not the sign of genius. Wood, if anything, came up with great titles, but that's about it. His films can be amusing in very strange ways, but the if Orgy of the Dead teaches us anything, it's that amusing can only get you so far ... even if you have a lot of bare breasts involved.

Nosferatu

2011-12-07T05:54:00.001-08:00

You don't have to love horror movies, silent films, or Germany to admire F.W. Murnau's 1922 film Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie des Grauens (usually known simply as Nosferatu). The iconic images of actor Max Schreck (a fine German name) as Count Orlok are known the world over. Even if you've never seen the film, which I find strange, you have seen the images. Hell, they set the standard for vampire and horror movies.

The film is an adaptation (unauthorized) of Dracula. There are changes from the book since this was unauthorized, but the story remains essentially the same. The story isn't what matters, though. It was the way it was shot that really made an impact on audiences and future and filmmakers.

Murnau's work is the epitome of German Expressionist film. Everything from the lighting to the sets are composed is textbook. Some have said that the perfection dilutes the film somewhat, but I would argue those views have been tainted by time. I have no doubt that were I sitting in pre-Hitler Germany with an audience we would be scared silly. As someone who has seen far too many horror movies, the film doesn't outright scare me, but it is a moody production that still works its way under the skin. That's also due in no small part to Schreck.

Before vampires glittered or wore frilly shirts while dancing around New Orleans, Schreck made Orlok rat-like with deliberate movements and some real pathos. Viewers can't help but be attracted to him and repulsed at the same time. Few vampire movies have been able to pull that off since, and I have to say that Orlok's screen time is by far my favorite vampire moments on film.

In this age of Twilight it's always good to go back and revisit the masters. Today's audiences have largely forgotten this film, instead more interested in "Teams," but that doesn't disqualify it as a piece of historic, influential cinema. I guarantee a hundred years from now people will still be talking about this one (assuming the Mayans aren't right), and Twilight will be but a footnote in cinematic history.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I was not sent this film to review, and if you click on a link I may earn a commission.

The Violence of Munich

2011-12-06T05:41:00.001-08:00

I did not see Munich back when it was released in 2005. I liked the idea behind the story, and I'm a fan of Eric Bana. What I'm not a fan of is Steven Spielberg (director) handling "serious" material. Mossad agents hunt down members of Black September after their own agents carry out a terrorist event at the Olympics. That's serious stuff, and it is, of course, based on a true story. I don't mind Spielberg's lighter efforts, but when it comes to the heavy stuff I think he fumbles the ball more times than not.

This was one of those times I was wrong.

Munich is a good film. It's even an important film. It says a lot about the ideas of revenge, state-sponsored violence, terrorism, and, perhaps most importantly, what this does to people.

Bana plays the head of a group of assassins sent by Israeli government to make Black September pay for its transgressions. What follows is a series of assassinations that start to take their toll on the group. They are isolated from friends, family and even their own government and are forced to deal with people who have little in the way of morals or values. In the end this leaves some of them dead and the others paranoid to the point of insanity. These are some of the same themes I've dealt with in my writing, and I find them fascinating.

Violence does some strange things to people. It empowers them. It destroys them. It empowers others. It destroys others. It propels stories and changes lives. It's something you can't take back no matter how hard you try. Spielberg's film wasn't trying to tackle this on a worldwide level (which would have been a mistake), but it was trying to show it at a governmental level that is akin to a tiny war. Bana and his men were soldiers, only they had no country and no spiritual backing. They were on their own, with only Israeli money spurring them on. If anyone came out of this film not believing this sort of thing goes on, they missed the idea that it goes on everywhere. People are used by their governments to do the governments' dirty work. They don't get the health benefits and pride of being a paid soldier with a uniform and a country to call their own. They are ghosts, and in the end that leads to perhaps the film's most interesting question: What if the government you are working for is lying?

I don't think Munich will change anyone's life. I was wrong to dismiss it, however. Spielberg, who only directed the story and did not write it, crafted a powerful movie. I also take offense to the critics who thought Spielberg was wrong in delivering the question of whether or not Bana and his crew were terrorists like those of Black September. Looking at the pull Israel has with our media and our government, I must say I am not surprised that people would think this, and I don't even think that was Spielberg's intent. He was simply throwing out the idea that violence, no matter for what reason, has direct consequences and if you are following someone else's orders, you better be sure you can trust what they are telling you ... and can that ever be possible? The terrorists in this film believed in what they were doing. The agents who went after them, some of whom wanted revenge, were essentially doing a job. If there was another group that could be called terrorists, it wasn't Bana's group, it was the government who paid them, and maybe that is where the critics' real contention lies, though they would never say that in a public forum.

Governments are capable of great evil. It can be a bomb dropped in Japan, or a man gunned down on a street. Spielberg was not reminding us of this. He took for granted that we already know this at one level or another. He also took for granted that we all believe terrorists act as terrorists do, and this is to be expected. What I believe Spielberg wanted us to take from the movie is that while governments are capable of great evil, it can't be done without someone carrying out the plans. And that is something we can stop ... if we really wanted to.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did not receive this movie to review, which you could easily determine from the first paragraph. If you click on a link, however, I may earn a commission.

The Sinful Dwarf XXX Style

2011-12-05T19:39:00.001-08:00

I recently received my hardcore copy of The Sinful Dwarf from the always reliable Diabolik DVD. Why would I purchase such a disgraceful and admittedly disturbing film? It's got a sinful dwarf in it! Forced heroin addiction! Forced prostitution! Singing! Creepy sexual assaults with a cane! What's not to love? You'd be hard pressed to find another film like this in the year it came out (1973), or any other year for that matter. Plus, I was going to have a few viewing parties.

The first viewing party went exceedingly well. Good company. Good conversation. Good observations. (There were times I felt like Joe Bob Briggs was sitting beside me due to the amount of commentary my viewing partner was making about breasts.) We even delighted in finding the four minutes that took this movie from an R rating to XXX. (It's obvious once you watch it.) It was a fun time, and it made me want to do even more viewing parties with various odd films.

Now, this movie is not everyone's style. I'll also admit that is really not a "good" filmby any kind of standard definition. The acting is odd. The dialogue is by-the-numbers. The story is just sitting there. Throw all the elements together, though, and you get this film that almost defies explanation. I've written about it before on this blog, so I won't go into the entire story again, but I want people to know that if I don't invite you over to see this one, it isn't because I hate you (though there's a good chance of that), it's because it's one of those films that I think could scar you. Not in the same way Irreversible would, but in a decidedly twisted and terrifying way, and while I find that sort of thing funny, I don't want to be sued for therapy bills. ("I swear, doc, all I keep seeing every time I close my eyes is that little ... thing ... drooling!") The person I saw it with requested to see it, as did one of the two members of the next viewing party. (The second member is not so excited to see it, but that is really a long story I don't want to get into.)

What I'd really like is if the person I watched it with commented here with what she thought of it, as I'm sure that would be interesting to read. And as for the next film? That's tough, but I think I might go with The Manson Family. I like watching that about once a year, and its time is due.

Lamenting Gay Hollywood

2011-11-26T15:20:00.001-08:00

The March 2011 issue of Z Magazine has an interesting piece by Michael Bronski called "The Gay Oscars." (Full disclosure, I have written for Z on film, and I am a big fan of the magazine.) In it, Bronski, in his usual, take-everyone-to-task way tackles the Oscars, breakthrough movies that deal with same sex relations, and how everyone has gotten it wrong. Bronski, it should be noted before people get upset, is a writer who has written such books as Pulp Friction: Uncovering the Golden Age of Gay Male Pulps and An LGBT History of the United States. To say he is "gay friendly" may be an understatement. Friendly, however, does not mean he lets the LGBT community pass by without examination, which is what drives his essay.

What prompted his piece was the buzz surrounding the Oscar nomination of The Kids Are Alright. It was being hailed as the new "big breakthrough movie," which Bronski tends to think his nonsense. He correctly points out that this label has been given to Brokeback Mountain and Milk, to name just two. He does point out, correctly, that it is the "first Hollywood movie to bring a lesbian family drama to a non-queer audience," but wonders if it is truly the "gayest film being nominated" that year. His answer? It's not.

Bronski then goes on to list what he considers films that have an even bigger impact and "queer sensibilities" or "inclinations." The list and his reasons are fairly surprising. The King's Speech (for its message of "overcoming a personal flaw that makes you a social outcast"), The Social Network (a film that at its core is about the "pain of an outsider"), The Fighter (for it's "subtext of the homo-eroticism of one-on-one contact sports"), Black Swan (for its portrayal of seeing a "diva go to pieces, which is a total treat for queer fans of diva worship."), 127 Hours (for James Franco's real-life sexuality, which remains at that writing a mystery), and True Grit (a "feminist" film with a "stronger female empowerment message than any five Julia Roberts movies put together."). These films, Bronski suggests (strongly), all have underlying themes that resonate with the LGBT community while often remaining hidden to the heterosexual audiences who come to see them. Correct again, Bronski.

Bronski's pick for the "queerest" film of the year? None other than Toy Story 3. The series, Bronski writes, have "managed to convey" themes like "isolation, fear, and potential tragic loss of a loved one" like few films have ever managed to portray. The three movies bring viewers "into the inner world of an unnoticed, tightly knit, and loving community." That, he says, is what makes Toy Story 3 the "queerest" film of the year.

Do I agree? Sure. Why not? The problem is that Bronski is looking for mainstream films that resonate with the LGBT community in a way that the mainstream audience doesn't realize. Bronski is, however, barking up the wrong tree.

When mainstream Hollywood latches itself onto anything, be it lesbian family dynamics or the latest dance craze, it will potentially expose the ideas to a broader audience, but the ideas it is exposing are Hollywood sanitized. Queer cinema is at its best and most dangerous when it has an outsider status. The people who watched Glen or Glenda, I Want What I Want and Vapors were outlaws watching outlaw films. The may have been hokey and exploitative, but they weren't sanitized (nobody can say that about Vapors). They weren't worried about mainstream acceptance, and because of that the films felt more honest. Hollywood, like all mainstream endeavors, destroys whatever subculture, counterculture, fringe, transgressive, etc., group it gets its hands on. The Kids Are Alright is not a breakthrough film for the queer culture. It's a mild breakthrough film for straight culture, and who really cares about pleasing them?

It's no surprise that the films Bronski picked are not blatant tales of homosexuality, lesbianism or gender twisting at its finest. Hollywood seems unable to accept a seriously dangerous and influential film designed not only to appeal to queer audiences but as also as a wake-up call to mainstream America. Hollywood figures there will be no money in it, and I don't think that's incorrect. When you have a generation brought up on things like The Kids Are Alright you can't expect it to grasp something like Vapors. Now if a remake of that were to become Oscar-nominated ... well ... I'll stand corrected.

James Brolin in ... The Car!

2011-11-09T20:29:00.000-08:00

If you were to bring up a list of James Brolin's cinematic achievements, I somehow doubt 1977's The Car would make the list. My seven-year-old daughter described it as "pretty dumb." I think that about sums it up.

Plot? Yes, of course there is a plot. An evil wind blows and a mysterious car shows up and runs over people. One time it even drives straight through a house to get at a woman. (Later, when hero Brolin discovers the car in his garage, he shuts the door to protect his family. He was witness to the devestation left by the car plowing through the house. How he thought shutting the door would protect his family is beyond me.) In the end, viewers are treated to the driving force behind the automobile. Not to spoil the ending, but it isn't human.

I actually enjoy movies and books about mysterious vehicles that kill people. Christine. Duel. Killdozer! Titanic. I like the idea that something we depend on every day taking revenge on hapless citizens. Anyone who has dodged traffic in New York City knows how terrifying this scenario can be when taken to its fullest potential. The Car, however, is a failure of a movie.

For a horror film, it isn't very scary. Hell, it isn't even very entertaining. It just sort of exists ... like dreamcatchers or wax fruit. Critics hated it upon release, and that venom would be far from sated these days. Are there any creepy moments? Only in Brolin's acting. I'm actually a bit of a fan of his, too. I liked him in The Amityville Horror. I enjoy his son's work, too. But this film? This is one of those you assume he did in order to put a bigger pool in or something. Watching it, I feel bad for him.

After finishing the film, my daughter asked me a very good question. "What was the point of that?" I couldn't answer her, so I said, "Demonic cars are evil and they can drive through houses." She asked if it was supposed to be scary. "Did it scare you?" I asked. "No," she replied. "Then it doesn't matter what it was supposed to be because it failed no matter what it was supposed to do." And there you have it. The Car is the AMC Pacer of vehicle horror movies.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I didn't get this movie for free. Nobody hates me that much.

Love The Beast

2011-10-23T19:25:00.000-07:00

Love the Beast should not work as a filmbecause one man’s obsession with his car should not make for compellingfilmmaking. It does work, however, andit exceeds any and all expectations.

EricBana directed this documentary, and he is as skilled a director as he is anactor. The obsession he is documentingis his own and it is with the Beast, a Ford Falcon GT coupe he bought as a teenand worked on with a close group of friends. Twenty-five years later and nearly as many rebuilds, he still has it,and he wants to race it in the Targa Tasmania, a dangerous rally race throughvillages and countryside of Tasmania. That’s the short of it, though. If the film were merely about that, I’d be bored with it. Instead, it is probably the best film I’veever seen that not only explains the love of racing, but also the realities ofpassion.

Bana andhis friends work together year after year on the Beast. It is a labor of love, and a bond. Bana, obviously, becomes a famous actor alongthe way, but he doesn’t lose his passion or his friends. And he continues racing even as he receivescritical acclaim for his movie roles. The truth is, racing seems more to his liking than acting. His friends know it, too, and when peoplelike Jay Leno (whose multiple garages are porn studios for car lovers), JeremyClarkson (from the real Top Gear) andDr. Phil McGraw talk to him about passion, racing, cars and identity, the filmstarts taking on some real meat. Thismeat culminates in Bana’s entrance into the Targa Tasmania.

To getthe Beast ready for the rally, Bana and his friends had it rebuilt one moretime. They don’t do this rebuild, whichis done to make the car a racing machine, but the finished product is a work ofabsolute beauty. It is, at this point, aliteral beast. If you know anythingabout muscle cars, you understand, as Jeremy Clarkson so candidly points out ina moment of dreadful clarity, that they look good and sound good, but handlelike crap. They are like wild horses onmeth. Even when you have them incontrol, you are always on the verge of losing it. Putting a muscle car in a rally race is notcourting with disaster -- it is flat out assaulting it with the vague hopeyou’ll emerge the winner. The reality ofthat is different, as witnessed in the in-car footage of crashes at variousrallies. It is scary stuff. I was in a nasty accident once. I was running from the police, going close toif not over 100 mph when the driver lost control of the vehicle. After skidding all over the winding countryroad, we came to a stop upon hitting a boulder. The moment I noticed the weeds were growing from where the sky should’vebeen was the moment I noticed that at some point we had gone upside down. Those incidents happen in a flash, and youdon’t have time to be terrified. A rallyrace is all about knowing that moment can happen at any time and not lettingyourself be terrified by the many obstacles (trees, buildings, poles,spectators, cliffs) that surround you. This film captures that element of insanity, but it is a more serenemoment that takes this film from interesting to incredible.

I willnot spoil the scene, but I want to point it out, as Bana has, perhaps unwittingly,put a moment on screen that is bigger than the film itself. It is a simple moment, but one that takes aviewer into an emotional pitfall that guarantees they won’t stop watching. It comes during the race. Bana is driving. His friend is riding shotgun and serving asthe navigator. They are speeding along acountry road. The navigator is rattlingoff the turns ahead when Bana chooses this moment to include a voice-over of amessage he received from his daughter (I believe) on his answeringmachine. The few things she says chokedme up, and caused me to become so emotionally involved that I could not lookaway if I tried.

If youlike Bana or love racing, this is a film you simply must see. If you are only interested in one or theother, this will make you a full-fledged fan of both. If you can’t stand either, you won’t want towatch this (and I’m surprised you’ve read this far). If you don’t watch it, however, you will notonly be missing out on one of the best documentaries I’ve seen, but also on oneof the most interesting looks at a celebrity as a real “human” and not someprefabricated media sculpture. Bana putshimself out there on every level, and he doesn’t care that you are witnessinghim at some of his not-so-best times. When you see him take a swig of beer before going out on the red carpetand calling it “bravery gravy,” you know this is him at his most honest. His love is four wheels and g forces. It shows in every scene, and he didn’t needbravery gravy before tackling the Targa. If you don’t watch this, you will miss that, and you will perhaps neverunderstand what attracts people to racing and the strength passion has over us.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Yes, I received this for free to review, and yes if you click on a link I may earn a commission.

The Thing About The Thing

2011-10-11T06:14:00.001-07:00

When I heard that a prequel to John Carpenter's masterpiece, The Thing was coming out, I was hardly thrilled. Thinking back, though, that was my initial reaction to Carpenter's movie, too. I know -- blasphemy. How can one not like The Thing? It was a perfect movie, untouched by CGI, riddled with paranoia, intelligent and honestly scary. To think ill of the film is like a Christian saying The Bible isn't all that hot. It doesn't work, and it isn't said, but I can admit that I was one of the maybe four people on the planet who did not like the movie upon first seeing it.

I saw it on video when it was first released. I didn't bother going into the theatre to see it. I liked Carpenter's other films, but this one didn't look great to me, and when I finally saw it my initial reaction was a mere shrug. I was wrong.

Going back to it years later made me realize how utterly brilliant it is. If Carpenter only did that film and Halloween he would be more widely worshipped. Instead, he did bombs like Ghosts of Mars, which did more harm to his career than good.

When I first heard of the new movie, I thought, as did many people, that it was going to be a remake. That left a really bad taste in my mouth. Carpenter's film did not need a remake. I feared that it would be full of CGI and cheap scares. I vowed to stay away from it. Then I heard that it wasn't a remake, but more of a prequel. That seemed more promising. A prequel actually made sense. Those who know Carpenter's film (and I believe quite a few more people will be checking it out on Saturday of this week, as the new film opens Friday), know that the beginning of the film picks up right in the middle of some serious action. Later you learn what has happened to the other camp in that winter wasteland. There was always a backstory there, and it was one that begged to be told. That is now happening, but the trailer leaves me a little hesitant to see the film.

My main complaint isn't the one most heard, which seems to be we now know everyone who hosts the Thing. I don't think that's the case at all. My complaint is, and this pains me, is that it looks boring. It doesn't look like it has the same type of spirit as Carpenter's movie, which was, at heart, a drama that revolved around a horror theme. This looks more like an action film, and not a very exciting one at that. Admittedly, it would be hard to sell the film the other way, and I have no doubt that everyone involved in this film loves Carpenter's work, so I do hold some hope this Friday's release. I'm not sure I'll go see it, though. I'm more interested in The Woman, which looks like it will have a real emotional impact.

I am sure I will see The Thing at some point. I'm just not sure if I'll go see it in the theatre. That may be a mistake (such as the one I made with the Carpenter film), but it may also save me a bit of money, which will buffet the possible disappointment. If I'm wrong -- great. I'll go catch the inevitable sequel, set after Carpenter's vision, in the theatre a few years from now ... maybe.

More Troubles for Netflix

2011-09-20T06:20:00.000-07:00

Netflix went from a company of ease to a company of disease in relatively short time this summer. First there was a price hike that was arrogant in launching and really only served to drive people away. And then there was Qwikster.

For those who haven't heard, Netflix, in the upcoming weeks, will only stream movies. Qwikster will be responsible for shipping DVDs and video games (which I suppose is the hitch that everyone is waiting for -- though quite honestly if it wanted to attract consumers it would also offer porn). Customers will have two separate bills and two separate queues to monitor. While Qwikster has yet to launch, I can't imagine this being easier for the customer to use. General comments online find people stating they will go to Blockbuster instead. How bad must a situation be that Blockbuster is seen as a solution? Bad.

I avoided Netflix for years. I would get films at my local video store, Video Experience here in Eureka, California. When that store closed, I turned to Netflix because I didn't like what I was left with here in town. I started streaming once I bought a Wii. The price hike came about a year later, and I decided to stick with the company. It's not like I could get The Sinful Dwarf in town. And more obscure foreign flicks? Forget it. There are a lot of cinemaphiles in Eureka, but few make the local video rental shack their first choice.

With the announcement of Qwikster, I'm left wondering how viable it will be. Will it cost even more? Will the selection be as good? How easy will it be to navigate and switch over queues? Instead of a knee jerk reaction, I'm willing to try it out before being relegated to the shitty selection of Eureka's "finest." (In all honesty, if I don't get DVDs from Qwikster I'll probably end up buying what films I want to watch and then selling them if I don't want to keep them.) Do I think Qwikster is a good idea? Most certainly not. I am troubled by the split as there seems to be no reason for it ... unless one wants more money. If there is a price hike with this company, too, it will spell doom for it. It makes no real sense that I can see unless it is all about another price hike with one company (the new one) set up to feel the wrath of angry subscribers.

The next few weeks will be interesting. I wonder what else is in store ...

Little Evil Man -- The Sinful Dwarf

2011-09-19T06:34:00.000-07:00

There are about 8 things wrong with this picture.

1973. Denmark unleashed one of the strangest, most unnerving films of all time onto an unsuspecting public. The Sinful Dwarf. The film stars Torben Billie, a reported one-time host of a children's television show, as Olaf, a cane-carrying, snarling, evil little man who lives with his mother in a boarding house.

Olaf's mother is Lila Lash (Clara Keller), a one time singer of some sort of stage show. She sports a horrible scar on her face that makes it look like someone tried to turn her into the Joker, but stopped at the first cheek. She implies that the scar, which looks like a knife wound, came from a fire. I believe Olaf was behind it.

Olaf and Lila run a boarding house. When the film opens they rent out a room to a young, struggling couple. What this couple doesn't know is that Olaf has a secret in the attic. In a small room is a dungeon of sorts where abducted young women are injected with heroin and then pimped out by Olaf and his lovely mother. They both have eyes on the new wife in the building, too, so you imagine things won't end well for her.

The film opens with a young lady whom I presume is suppose to be a young girl. She's setting up a hopscotch layout on the sidewalk, hair in pigtails. A close-up of her face puts her at 20 or so, but all her actions say she's about 12 years of age. As she's hopping around, a dwarf with a horrible limp and a cane approaches her and puts a toy dog on the ground. The girl thinks this is the bee's knees and follows Olaf to his boarding house. "I have more toys upstairs!" Olaf growls. She follows him into the attic(!), where he knocks her out with his cane. The next time we see her she'll be naked and drugged up.

Okay, I'm far from the "blame the victim" type, but if you follow a creepy dwarf to his attic and the only thing he's said to you is that he has more toys upstairs, and that upstairs turns out to be an attic -- you can't be surprised by what comes next. What good has ever come out of something like this? And that is another reason I believe this girl is supposed to be far younger than she looks, which makes everything creepier.

Olaf in a saner, non-raping moment.

Lila has her own brand of creepiness, too. Besides being a drunk, she has an equally alcoholic female friend who comes over who Lila often sings for after a few drinks. The first song routine, which will stick in your head like the dance scene in Calvaire features Lila in full-costume, green eye shadow and what looks like green lipstick all over her scar. A vision that only a dwarf could love.

There are numerous other moments of sheer madness. The opening credits feature music that sounds like it belongs on Massacre's Killing Time release, and one scene of utter cruelty features Olaf raping the bride ... with the handle of his cane. Observe that while the cane is violating the young woman, Olaf gives it a little twist.

There is a lot about this film that feels wrong. Some of the johns who come into the dungeon to have sex with the women are shown fully naked, romping around. While others you never get to even see their faces. Then there's Torben. I've never seen this man in anything else, but the way he plays this role makes me think he didn't have to dig very deep to bring it out. (I can see interviews with other actors, all of them saying the same thing. "Oh, he was dedicated. He was in character the entire time.") This and more gives the whole film this odd feeling that it is real. (One moment that defies explanation, but still feels right, is when a cop and the captured bride's husband find her in the dungeon. They have Lila with her, and the cop asks the husband, "Do you know how to fire a gun?" The husband answers that he does, and the cop hands him his weapon and leaves the room. There is little doubt as to what he wants the husband to do.)

The Sinful Dwarf is a brilliant film insomuch as it is so wonderfully wrong. Abducted women forced into heroin addiction and pimped out. A drug dealer named Santa. A rape by cane. Voyeurism. Implied pedophilia. A soundtrack that seems like it came from four different movies. Forced cunnilingus. And the feeling that this movie isn't that far removed from reality. Try saying that about the Saw franchise. You can't. It has, despite that brilliance, kind of dropped from the radar. Let's face it, not many of today's critics have seen it, let along reference it. (Can you see Ebert, in his review of Eat Pray Love saying, "This film would've benefited greatly by an appearance from Olaf and his cane." It just doesn't happen.) That's a shame, too, as this film is nothing but a lesson in effective filmmaking.

One final thought. Torben, as he is simply billed in the film, died in 1993. How he died, I do not know. What I'm curious about, however, is what they found in his apartment/house/trailer/shack. Were there adult toys? Disturbing Polaroids of underage girls? That cane? How far removed from Olaf was Torben Billie? Where did the role stop and the man begin? I'll probably never know the answer to that, and because that is the case, he will always be Olaf to me.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I was not given this film to review, and if you click on a link I may earn a commission. A bit of advice to all the ladies, too: If a dwarf tries to lure you into his attic with a toy dog, do your best not to follow him. Unless, of course, you like free heroin and sex with strange looking foreigners.

Dripping Fun: The Incredible Melting Man

2011-09-18T17:27:00.000-07:00

If there is one word that can be used to describe the 1977 film The Incredible Melting Man it is: drippy. I think it's the only film where that word can be used accurately. Thanks to special effects wizard Rick Baker, that's about the only thing I can remember about the film. Well, that and the fact that the actor who played the melting man (Alex Rebar) did a lot of walking.

I looked up the plot online because I hadn't seen this thing in years, and I didn't trust my memory of it. What little I could recall is actually pretty close to the film's plot. Rebar plays Steve West, who returns to Earth after being exposed to radiation during a space flight to Saturn. As we all know from things like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, melting slowly is exactly what happens when exposed to radiation. To survive, West must eat human flesh, which means he has to kill people, too. Again, the radiation exposure does cause cannibalism. That's why a lot of people stay out of Nevada. I believe it's also the only movie to feature its main character being swept up into a garbage can at the film's conclusion. No, Troma is not responsible for this.

I do remember liking this as a kid. Our local UHF channel out of Philadelphia (one of two that I remember) played it quite a bit. I wasn't freaked out by it, and nor did I have nightmares. My enjoyment of it apparently wasn't marred by the numerous bad reviews the film received. Many declared it one of the worst horror movies of all time. That may be true, but how many other horror films dealt with the serious effects of radiation exposure in such a realistic way? Exactly. (And yes, I am being sarcastic.)

I'm half tempted to seek out a copy of this film to see how I respond to it now that I'm older and have seen Man Made, a film I declared on Film Threat to be the worst film I had ever seen. (You can read my review here. As proof of its sheer suckiness [not a real word], I left my copy of it outside a store I worked at. Nobody took it. Not even overnight. You could leave a used condom out there and someone would take it.) I fear that in doing so, however, I will only curse myself for wasting my time. I love film. I do not love it enough, though, to waste my time with movies I know will be time-wasters.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link could earn me some cash, yo! Obviously, I haven't seen this in quite some time, too.

Vice Squad Motherfuckers

2011-09-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

If there is one sentence that should make you want to see the 1982 film Vice Squad it is this one: Wings Hauser plays a pimp named Ramrod. Oh, he sings the opening song, "Neon Slime," too.

Vice Squad is a bit of a brutal film that centers around the Los Angeles hooker named Princess (Season Hubley) after she helps the police catch Ramrod, who murdered one of Princess' peers.

If there was any doubt that Ramrod was a bit of a nutter, just watch what he does to Princess when the vice squad break in to arrest him. He uses her head to head butt a cop, beats her with a chair and so on. He is not a nice guy.

If Ramrod's arrest went according to plan, it would be a short movie. He's a resourceful guy, however, and after being put into an undercover vehicle he kicks a cop's head through a window, causes the car to crash and makes his escape. After a few choice visits to various places (including one to a leather daddy gay bar), Ramrod is packing heat and looking to make good on his promise to kill Princess.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTbzw226ayw</a>" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

More violent than an episode of T.J. Hooker, which started the same year, the film is also less technically savvy. Take the marriage to the corpse scene. Anyone who has seen the film remembers this scene. As Ramrod is hunting Princess, she is in a bridal dress ready for a night of kinky sex. As she enters a candlelit room the observant viewer will plainly see a camerman holding a camera to the right of the screen. It happens pretty quickly, but it is disarming.

Of course, there is no real way to compare this to Shatner's television show. This is a gritty crime movie, where characters actually curse and cops tend to be as nearly as psychotic as the madmen they are chasing. Ramrod is, however, far worse than those who chase him.

The film may seem a bit dated by today's standards. If the film were remade it would be far too stylized and self-aware to be as enjoyable as the original. There's a reason this film is remembered so fondly ... and it's not Hauser's singing.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link can earn me some cash. I was not given this film to review.

The Debt

2011-09-18T14:58:00.000-07:00

The Debt has gotten mixed reviews, and rightly so. While it is a solid film, it is not perfect, but it is "enjoyable," if such a term could be used for a film that centers around the abduction of a Nazi war criminal (delightfully portrayed by Jesper Christensen) and the eventual aftermath of his capture. As one elderly coupled said at the film's conclusion, "That was depressing."

I went into the film with zero expectations. I enjoy a good thriller, and on that front I can't complain. I also enjoy a movie that presents a moral dilemma, which this does. Unfortunately, I have not not seen the original version that this film was based on (which came out in 2007), as it was never released theatrically here, and I missed it on Sundance. Because of that, I can't comment on whether or not the original source material worked better, but I can say with some certainity that this one could've used some tweaking.

The cast worked well, with standout Christensen playing a Nazi Hannibal Lecter without the ham Hopkins brought to that role. Helen Mirren was as good as expected, too. There is also plenty of character backstory to go around, some of which seemed like it would only help the movie if it were more deeply explored. We get mentions of car bombs and extra-marital affairs, which do well to flesh out the characters, but I wanted to know more. And then there is the problem of the split timeline.

Normally this disjointed type of narrative offers a unique way of telling a film. Sometimes it can be confusing, though that's not the problem here. The hazards that come with this film's split timeline is that the section which deals with the mission of three Mossad operatives trying to capture a Nazi war criminal plays much better than the storyline that deals with the problems of their actions. Both stories should've been equally compelling, and if they couldn't be, the movie should've focused only on one. Because so much screen time was given to the original mission (as it should've been because this is where most of the action takes place), we don't get the same sense of importance when we are returned to the movie's present day.

The Debt is still a solid thriller that asks some important questions about lying and taking responsibility for one's actions. It also doesn't pander to the 18-34 male market that Hollywood seems to routinely pimp itself out for. It is a movie actually made for adults ... adults who understand the importance of truth as well as the times you don't want to use it. It is slow and methodical, and that is also part of the reason not all reviews have been favorable. The current audience has been raised on (and expects) bloodshed and explosions every eight minutes lest one's attention turns to his or her cellphone. Here we have characters actually discussing their actions and where their responsiblity lies. God or country? It's a great question, and this movie provides some fodder for the answer, but like the reviews, those answers are going to be mixed.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I paid to see this movie.

Destroying the Artist: Heckler

2011-08-31T06:28:00.000-07:00

I found Jamie Kennedy's Heckler for $3.99 used at a local Walgreens, the obvious hub of film for a cinemaphile like myself. I hadn't seen the movie before, but a documentary examining the irritants known as hecklers seemed like it would be interesting. As far as Kennedy goes -- I've liked some of his stuff more than others (the Jamie Kennedy Experiment was pretty damn good), but I can say that about almost anyone (and I'm sure it's been said about me). Watching the movie, however, proved it was far more than interesting. It was, no hyperbole intended, essential viewing for any artist or critic.

Kennedy's film starts out with some great stories about hecklers, and plenty of comedians and others in the public eye share their experiences with them. This examination of the heckler soon turns into a very pointed look at critics and their role in society. As someone who has been a professional critic (meaning I get paid, yo) for more years than I care to remember, this hit home. I know I've been guilty of writing scathing reviews. I know I've probably been more personal than I should have been. I also know I try to write something positive about movies I hate, too. On the flip side of that, I've also been "heckled" as it were. (One reader, angry about a review I gave a CD, wrote into the magazine I wrote it for saying he wanted to cut my head off and shit down my neck. He wasn't even associated with the release. He was just a fan of it.) That said, I'm glad this film doesn't let critics off the hook (in fact, some of them are confronted face to face with results that are shocking, to say the least).

I could write about who is in this movie and how funny they were (or not, in some cases), but you can look up the subjects on your own. What is important is what this film says about the critic (a professional heckler,perhaps). I've written about this before. Artists and non-artists alike tend to dislike critics. I can understand the artist disliking them, but the non-artists' disdain has always puzzled me. When these people tell me they can't trust critics, or that critics don't like anything, I always ask what films (usually) they recommend or would steer me away from. Inevitably they will name something, and when I ask for a reason why I should see it or spend my time elsewhere, I get the worst answers. ("It sucks." "It has cool car chases.") The critic is supposed to dissect and explain why a piece works or doesn't work. Lately, though, everyone really is a critic, and therefore you get critics who can't explain their own damn feelings.

I've defended the profession of the critic often in the past, but even I will admit it gets hard when a critic, like one covered here, tells Kennedy to his face that his panning of one of Kennedy's films has now given Kennedy a new "dark place" to go "cry."A s someone who has been accused of being "mean-spirited" in the past, even I would not go this far. (Except, of course, when it comes to that band The Presidents of the United States. Those guys know why they piss me off.)

What was Kennedy hoping to accomplish with this film? People who already agree that critics are worthless slugs on the plant of life are only going to nod their heads in agreement. People who think creators who put their creation in the public eye have to accept that the criticism will not always be kind will think that Kennedy and company come across as whiny, pampered stars. (Judging by some reactions on the Internet, there are a lot of people in this camp.) Was Kennedy hoping to cause viewers to feel sorry for him? Was he trying to get people to stop reading critical pieces on film, music and the like? No on both counts. What he is trying to do, or at least what I think he is trying to do, is to get everyone to be better at their craft. When anyone with a computer can hop online and write anything they want with anonymity, it cheapens all words. When anyone can go into a comedy club and disrupt someone's act and think that's okay, it continues to foster disrespect for someone's art. (And while I am the first to admit I don't like all art, I do respect what goes into it. The process of creation, and comedy is art and creation, is not an easy one.) Kennedy doesn't want critics to stop writing what they think. He wants them to write it better. He wants them to create work they can be proud to call their own. Hell, while he doesn't go out and say it, I bet he wants critics to spend as much time on their work as he spends on his act. You may not like everything he does (and you may not like everything a critic has written), but if you can tell there is time and thought put into something, you can respect it more. (One scene features Kennedy reading an awful review of his work back to the critic who wrote it. Kennedy is clearly hurt by it, but he takes the time to tell the writer that he uses "beautiful" words.) You can respect it for that. We've lost a lot of that respect for art, and in turn we've lost it for ourselves ... and what we do.

I actually don't like writing negative reviews of films, books or music. (I think plenty of people do like writing those because it's easy, and you can actually have some fun with it.) I find it to be taxing, and I feel as if I've wasted my time. I try to find something I can respect in every piece (sometimes that is quite hard). I will admit, though, I've written some nasty reviews (nothing I've thought was unwarranted, though), and when I did "Excess Hollywood" for Film Threat I wrote more than my share of pure hatred. I can honestly say, though, that this anger comes from my passion for movies, books and music. I love and respect these things so much that when I feel they have failed, I do take it personally.

Years ago I got an e-mail from a director whose film I trashed. She wasn't happy with me, but she thanked me. She said I made some good points about what went wrong with the film, but the part that stuck with her the most was that even though I hated it, I pointed out one thing I thought did work ... and it was her favorite part of the film. That letter meant a lot to me. It showed me that my words not only have power, but they are also read by people who can be directly effected by them. Heckler demonstrates the exact same thing.

Kennedy may go on to bigger and better things. I think he is talented enough to stick around for a while, if he doesn't get discouraged by all the crap that is thrown his way. This will be the most important film he'll probably ever make, however. I don't mean that as a slam or as a prediction on his future career. What I mean by it is that he has made something that is bigger than it has any right to be. Rarely do artists speak out about these sorts of things because they don't want to be seen as whiners and ungrateful. Kennedy not only shows that the hecklers and critics have an effect on artists and their work, but that critics should also try to elevate there's so that there is real criticism going on ... and not just pointless rants that amount to nothing more than a man yelling, "You suck!" People may still say Kennedy sucks, but after seeing this you won't be able to deny that he's made a bold film that few others would have the guts to create.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I paid for this film, and I think I didn't pay enough. Also, if you click on a link you may end up earning me a small commission.

Don't Mess Aroun' With Foxy Brown

2011-08-28T20:18:00.000-07:00

She is the meanest chick in town. No shit. She really is. She'll burn you alive. Shoot you twice in the head. Cut your penis off and give it to your girlfriend in a pickle jar. That's just some of the fun that can be found in this 1974 classic of blaxploitation. Directed by Jack Hill and starring Huggy Bear himself (Antonio Fargas), Pam Grier in the title role, and the always enjoyable Sid Haig, this was originally supposed to be a sequel to Coffy, but American-International Pictures decided it didn't want a sequel for some odd reason. The film still came out, obviously, but one can't help but wonder what it would've been like if Hill was allowed to go back to the Coffy pot.

Instead, we get Foxy (a.k.a Misty Cotton later in the film), a woman whose Fed boyfriend is gunned down after an identity change. How did this happen? Fuckin' Huggy Bear sold him out, and therefore ruined his sister's day. That's right. After Foxy saves her ne'er-do-well brother (we all have one), he decides to screw her over to help pay his debt to some people running a prostitution/drug ring disguised as a modeling agency. (Now they just use Taco Bells for that.) Foxy decides to go undercover as a high-class hooker and for her troubles gets injected with heroin, raped and beat up a bit. Disney, it should be noted, is not looking to remake this.

Foxy Brown influenced a lot of movies since then. (Fans of Superbad will feel right at home in the opening credits.) This is due to the fact that this was blaxploitation at its peak. You've got a great soundtrack, poor acting (and some good acting, too), female empowerment to the nth degree, Grier's breasts, and dead white people. Mainstream Hollywood this was not, and people like Quentin Tarantino understood the power of these films.

The film, as influential as it is, falls into the same trap that plagues blaxploitation films. Made with little money, these films tried their best. Some of the actors weren't up to the script, and the scripts weren't always all that great to begin with. The only reason these films seemed to get funding is because an underserved audience ate them up, and it was looked at as money in the bank. The message, however, was the important thing. It was subversive and at times stereotypical. It was also a free-for-all where anything and everything could happen. The audience the films were intended for were rarely disappointed; happy to see stories geared to them finally make it to the big screen.

It should also be noted that few white women in films were as tough as Foxy at this time. You didn't get many of them running around putting bullets into people or chopping off a penis. At least I don't recall Jane Fonda doing that in any way but symbolically. Grier was the definition of a tough woman, and she made the roles she took believable. Some would say this is her best film. I'm not sure I agree with that, but she is really the only reason to watch it. (Haig, whom I like, is wasted here. He has a bit role that doesn't have enough meat in it to satisfy. He relishes it, though.)

They don't make films like this anymore. Audiences wouldn't tolerate them. There are films that try, though, but they are homages and nothing more. This era of film is done, and this stands as one of its highlights. Any film that can make white men fear for their penis is tops is my book.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did not receive this film to review, and seeing as I'm too lazy to add links, there's no need to worry about me getting a commission off this one.

Bloodsucking Freaks -- The Trouble With Vampires

2011-08-18T22:01:00.000-07:00

Fright Night returns! Like the vampires it portrays, it is back from the dead starring everyone's favorite overrated actor, Colin Farrell. Think Twilight for cooler kids. Well, not really, but that pissed some people off.

I saw the original Fright Night when it came out and read the book by two exceptional authors (Skipp and Spector). I disliked both of them quite a bit. Why? The movie had too much humor and the book read a lot like fan fiction. Oh, and I don't really like vampires.

Don't get me wrong. There are some great vampire movies. (There are some great vampire books, too, but this isn't my book blog.) The original Nosferatu. 30 Days of Night. Vampire in Brooklyn. (I'm kidding on that one.) It is possible to make a good vampire movie that doesn't involve teens and love.

Even though I'm not a vampire fan, I do have a certain type of vampire I like to see. It's not the dashing misunderstood type, who broods and pines for lost love, spouting off lines about eternal life being a "curse" and a "burden." Nor is it the faux bad boys that turn ugly in the very homoerotic film called The Lost Boys. Nope. I like my vampires feral. Animals that bathe in the blood of their kills as they lap up around the open wounds. If they're sexual, I want the sex to be born of rage. I don't want any complaining about eternal life, either. I like my vampires more like Cassidy from the Preacher comic books and less like Lestat. (I actually blame Anne Rice for a lot of that romanticism that has ruined the vampire mythos. Yes, it was always there on some level, but she made it really popular. Now she can go and ruin Jesus, too.)

I imagine Fright Night will do well at the box office. It looks to be a little less humorous than the much-loved original, too. (Thank goodness for small, unasked for favors.) I won't watch it unless dragged to it. I won't read the book, either, if that happens to come out. All of which brings one thing to the forefront: If I don't like vampires all that much, and don't like too much humor in my horror movies, why did I watch the film and read the book in the first place? The answer's easy. I want to like vampires.

The horror fan in me loves whenever a horror movie comes out, even if it is a remake. I think vampires, as a subgenre, have a wealth of untapped potential. Every time I see a new movie or book, I get a little hopeful that this will be the one to turn it all around. 30 Days of Night, which started out as a comic book, was such a great idea it's hard to believe someone didn't think of it sooner. The comic series and the movie were both pretty good. Most of the times, though, what we are given is just more of the same. I don't want 43 year old mall moms digging vampire tales unless they are already a little twisted in the first place. They definitely shouldn't be using stuff like the Twilight series as masturbation material, yet that is what is happening. Teen girls love it. Mall moms love it. Vampires should not be adored by these people. They shouldn't be fantasizing that Edward will come and carry them away. They should be fearful he'll come and rip their fucking throats out. You don't see this demographic (a broad one, I know) getting all weak-kneed over cinematic serial killers (Anthony Hopkins the exception) or sporting Maniac t-shirts reading "Team Frank." But throw a vampire their way and expect the batteries to disappear out of the remote.

Vampires have become cuddly and safe. Muppets with stylish hair. Gone are the days of hanging garlic on the door and hoping the Glick boy doesn't come scratching at your window. Now we have vampire weddings and births, cool guys on motorcycles who glimmer in the sun or some such nonsense. At least some horror conventions are still sacred.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link could earn me somes spendings monies.

Another Love Story

2011-07-25T18:58:00.000-07:00

If you asked me (and I know you didn't), the film I most want to see this summer does not involve superheroes, transforming robots, or Justin Timberlake screwing anyone. Nope, it's a tale of kidnapping, forced sex, mind control, a former beauty queen and Mormons. It's also a documentary. That film would be Errol Morris' Tabloid. If Morris is capable of making something that isn't interesting, well, I don't know about it. This looks to be no exception.

Here is a tale of a woman who falls in love and then her beau goes off with the Mormons. Was he brainwashed by them? Was she a stalker? Doesn't matter, does it? What happens is she kidnaps him, confines him in a cabin and has sex with him repeatedly over the course of three days. The press goes into orgasmic overdrive with this one.

As with any Morris film, nothing is all that cut and dry. Was it kidnapping? Was it brainwashing? Who is sane? Who is insane? This is the stuff good documentaries are made of, and I cannot wait to get my eyeballs on this one. I'll avoid green wisecrackers and anything with Tom Hanks in it. I won't even consider seeing Bad Teacher because ... shit, do I need a reason? No. Tabloid will get my time and money ASAP. Still not sold. Here's the trailer. If this doesn't at least make you a wee bit curious, enjoy Larry Crowne.

Love is in the Air

2011-07-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

Eat ... from my body

I'm not a fan of romance movies. Well, to be fair, I'm not a fan of what one normally calls romance films. Hell, I think Die Hard is a fine romantic film. (Guy goes through hell to save his ex-wife, whom he doesn't even get along all that well with when he could've just stayed low and tried to escape on his own and probably would've succeeded.) There is one film, however, that while technically falls under the category of horror, is really what I envision a romance movie to be. If you recognize the image here, you know that film is Takashi Miike's 1999 classic Audition.

The plot is the standard stuff of romance films. Several years after the death of his wife, a man sets out to find a new wife to help him raise his son. He does this by setting up a fake audition for actresses with the help of his film producer friend. At this point the film is comedic, with a lovely genre montage of wacky actresses. Once our widower finds his woman, hijinks ensue.

The hijinks, however, are some of the most psychological and physically upsetting things far too many people will ever see on screen. One of the early moments that lets you know something is amiss involves a seen featuring the chosen woman and a background object in her apartment. It is truly chilling, and is a scene you won't forget.

What is love/Oh baby, don't hurt me

As a horror film, Audition fits the bill perfectly. As a romance, there are no films that are as symbolically correct as this one. Romances start out light and fun and end up with piano wire and needles. As our wonderful object of desire, Asami, says, "Words create lies. Pain can be trusted." If there's a better phrase to sum up courtship and relationships, I am not privy to it.

Asami may be the most perfect film female, too, or at least the most fully realized one. Again, this is purely symbolic, but her character is one of camouflage, confusion, innocence, sexuality, deceit and pain all in one. You don't get that with Kate Hudson or Meg Ryan. All the romance movies I've seen (I've self-limited on that) all have the standard one-dimensional cookie-cutter characters often played by one-dimensional cookie-cutter actors. When you make a movie with characters like that, you get movies that are surface deep. Miike's film can be easily dismissed by anyone not thinking about it too deeply (audiences have walked out in record numbers), and you can get very angry at him for deceiving you with the first part of the film, but you can't say he isn't representing (again, symbolically) relationships, which are often based on small deceits.

There is a lot more in this film that fits the symbolism of relationships (the history of abuse, the presence of dreams, the eating of vomit, etc.), but to understand its full power you actually have to dig your heels in and sit through it. It will enrage some, and if your ideal romance stars Hugh Grant you will most likely have nightmares once this is over (if you can find it in yourself to take it all in). By the time it's over, though, and once the initial shock has left your system (part of this movie will stay with you forever), you'll understand that as far as romantic films go ... this one is the most honest.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link may earn me a small commission.

Horrible Bosses and the Forgotten Art of Murder

2011-07-22T06:32:00.000-07:00

When I first read the premise and cast list for Horrible Bosses I thought it might be something I would want to see. I liked most of the cast, except for the guy from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (that character bothers me -- low rent Bobcat Goldthwait) and the one from Saturday Night Live. I'm also big on the idea of getting rid of the dead weight in your life. Then I started to see the trailers.

What could've been a very dark comedy (I have no expectations of someone ever doing a serious drama about the justified killing of one's employer) instead looked like more inane slapstick. The subject matter is serious. Murder is murder, after all. If one is to do a comedy about it, I would want to see the issue seriously explored in a darkly humorous way. Workplace violence is not exactly rare, and the amount of people who harbor such thoughts is probably startling high. To reduce such an important and life-altering subject down to a knee-slapper is fine for some people, but I want serious grit. A film like that could still be funny ... in an uncomfortable way.

I decided to avoid the film, with the idea that I could possibly devote some time to it on DVD, but probably not. A friend told me something, however, that he thought would not only totally change my mind, but blow it.

Jennifer Aniston plays a sexually harassing boss who says naughty things!

Seriously. This was being used to sell the film to me ... and audiences, as this popped up in almost everything I read about the film. She sexually harasses Bobcat Goldthwait-lite and says the kind of dirty things you fantasize her saying to you. When I wasn't buying this selling point, my friend continued on, going into great detail on her exploits.

I finally had to remind him that Aniston wasn't her character on Friends and she was an actor who was playing a role. That only seemed to strengthen his argument. "I know! She's never played a role like this. It's awesome. She isn't that good girl anymore." I replied, "She also isn't a 'bad girl.' She's an actor playing a role. An actor playing a role isn't news, and it happens in every movie." He didn't get it, though. He just kept pushing it, so I changed tactics. I decided that since logic wasn't working, I'd try being very serious.

"How funny would this be if the genders were reversed and it was a male boss doing this? I don't think it would be that much of a comedy then." Instead of pondering that, he must have thought I misunderstood him. "No, she's the boss! She's doing the harassing. It's not the other way around. That's why it's funny."

At this point I never wanted to see the movie if this was the type of audience it was attracting. My friend, bless his shriveled, little heart, gets really jazzed about movies he loves ... and he loves a lot of what I would consider to be crap. He gets so excited that he can't seem to think critically of them.

So he continued, extolling the non-existent virtues of an Aniston gone bad. Telling me every little detail (which I blocked out) in such detail (and probably embellishment) that I seriously started to think he was masturbating in the theatre, or at the very least in the privacy of his own home, playing the scenes over and over in his head.

I needed to end his phone call, though. I had a book to read. And hearing about Aniston, who is not a great actor to begin with, and her dirty deeds done in character was giving me a headache. I came up with the perfect way to end it, and ruin his fantasies the same way he destroyed my brain cells.

"So what did her employee do to her?" I asked. "Did he give in and have anal sex with her while cutting her head off with a hacksaw and screaming, 'Is this how you like it, bitch!'? Did he orgasm as she bled out on by the dental chair?"

Silence. Then, "What the hell is wrong with you, man? This isn't one of your sick French films. We don't make movies like that in America."

No, but we should, and if it starred Aniston, I'd watch it.

The Secret Video (a.k.a. The Blood-Draining Satanists)

2011-07-21T20:50:00.000-07:00

If you grew up in the Poconos in the late '80s there was only one thing that brought fear into your average family's home. It wasn't black people from New York moving in next door. It wasn't skinheads (that came later). It wasn't even the Tax Man. It was long-haired Satanists who were carving up cats and kids in rituals deep in the woods under a full moon and under the spell of LSD or some other drug. I know. I was one of them.

Well, not really.

I was thought of as one of them. I had long hair, listened to heavy metal and punk music, and had a tendency to really fuck with people. About the only thing that's changed is the hair. Anyway, back in those days, if you lived in the Poconos and had long hair and listened to -- gasp -- Iron Maiden, you obviously worshipped the Devil. Or at least that was people's perceptions. Since I like screwing around with people's fears and misconceptions, I often had a field day with this sort of thing, and when asked to partake in a project for the school I graduated from, I could not refuse.

The idea was simple. A friend of mine who was still in school had to do an interview with someone on video. He couldn't think of anyone to do it with, as all the good war vets and cops were already snatched up. So he wanted to know if I would do something. Being a prankster, I immediately agreed, as long as I could play one of those agents of Satan. And so the die was cast ...

As we plotted this out, we realized I would be making up all kinds of crazy shit that could conceivably cause a police investigation. I was no stranger to these investigations, but I tried to keep away from them as much as possible. If you think the Eureka, CA police are trigger happy, you should travel back in time to meet the Poconos good ol' boys who passed themselves off as men of the "law." Hey, what cop doesn't pistol whip his wife with his service revolver?

Since this video was going to be "damning," we enlisted the help of a guy who was working with the media at the local college. He set up the lighting so I would be in shadows at all times (as long as I didn't get out of my chair), and if I recall correctly, we ended up disguising my voice.

For props I had some knives and a container full of fake blood that I made special for the occasion. Then the interview began. I don't remember all of what I said, but I do remember holding up the container and stating that it was the "blood of my victims" and that I kept it in the refrigerator. And then going off the agreed up course of discussion, I talked about having a basement full of automatic weapons that would enable me to start a small war in the tourist haven of Northeast Pennsylvania. Who would believe that shit, right? Crazy.

The day comes for my friend to show his video in class. I wasn't there, or I would've been laughing. Apparently it was greeted with utter silence. People were freaked out. (If you don't know me very well, I can actually play a psychopathic character pretty well, and I'm fairly convincing.) The video ended and the teacher went right to the VCR and popped it out. My friend went to get it and was told by the teacher that he had to take it to administration right away because he was sure the police would want to see it. He then wanted my friend to reveal the interviewee. He refused to do it.

Nothing ever happened to me due to the video. I don't know if the police investigated my friend, as we sort of lost contact with each other soon after that. I like to think that somewhere in the basement of Pocono Mt. Senior High the video is in some abandoned desk drawer, the decision being made not to go to the police. Someday someone will find it and hunt down a VCR. My guess is it will be met with the same type of silence that was in that classroom that day.

When you think about the power of film and moving images, you often think of how it can be used to either lift the spirit or spread propaganda. (Often one in the same.) You don't often think of how it can be used just to screw with people and get a reaction that the participants may not even be around to see. That was the entire reason I did the videotaped interview. Manipulation of reality. For those students in that room on that day, their world kind of went a little batshit. There was some murderous Satanist wandering their neighborhood, stockpiling AK47s and keeping blood in his fridge next to the Coke and hot dogs. They didn't feel safe. They were scared. And it was all a manipulation (and probably not even that clever) that played with all the fears going on in the community at the time. (To give one an idea of how bad it was, I started dating a girl and her mom got an anonymous call from some woman stating that I got the girl into devil worshipping and we were seen killing a cat in a Satanic circle of some sort. Luckily my girlfriend's mother was not an idiot and dismissed the caller as irrational and sensationalist.) It was easy to do, and it was that easy because most people don't think about what they are watching. They just absorb it. It becomes real. It becomes reality. It doesn't matter how accurate the images are, or even how plausible. They are reality.

The teacher helped sell it, too. Any student thinking that maybe the video was a hoax, had to be given a second thought once they saw the teacher react so decisively. The one person who should've been level-headed about the entire incident overreacted, and that only made it seem more real.

Never underestimate the power of film, and never forget to question what you are viewing ... even if it's pure entertainment ... or a fake Satanist with a fridge full of blood.

Netflix and the Inevitable

2011-07-21T08:02:00.000-07:00

I'll admit it. I'm a Netflix user. Multiple price hikes and a selection that is less-than-stellar (but still better than the video stores in Eureka, CA now that VX is gone) have not kept me away. I get the DVDs in the mail, and I enjoy movies like Pervert via streaming. Well, enjoy may be too kind, but you get the idea.

Netflix, as most people know, recently announced another price hike. The second in eight months. People were upset. I was upset. I'm too much of a movie junkie to let my service lapse, however, and that is the remarkable thing about this. Netflix not only knew this would cause a backlash (any company that is thinking of the long term will conduct studies before it does something like this) and didn't care, it publicized the fact that it knew and didn't care. Most companies will do no such thing for fear of angering its customers beyond a price hike. Netflix, it seems, is pretty confident in its abilities as company to survive such a thing ... and it's correct in thinking that way.

There are problems with Netflix. Over time it has gone more of the route of television shows and mainstream hits, whereas in the past you could find a lot of independent movies on there, too. They still exist, but the stable is getting smaller. What Netflix does right, however, is be all things to everyone. It's not tied down by regional variations that plague video rental brick and mortar stores. That all-encompassing scope works to its benefit, while it does in your standard place of business.

Video rental stores and interesting beasts. They have to know the people they serve, and those people are usually the folks in the neighborhood. In that population there are really two sorts of viewers. There are those who look at movies as pure entertainment, and those who appreciate it as an art form.

The viewer who looks at movies as pure entertainment will primarily stick to new releases and old favorites that were popular three months ago. This audience will keep a video store business in business as it is huge. They can be counted on to rent whatever is new as soon as it is out. This crowd is the store's bread and butter. They usually live close to the store, too.

The group that looks at movies as art will rent popular and new releases, but it is also after stuff off the beaten path. The film with subtitles? These folks rent it. The one from 1973? Same thing. If a store has a good selection of these artistic/independent/foreign films, this audience will be customers for life, and they will travel to the store, passing several other video stores along the way.

The group that looks at movies as pure entertainment are fickle. If a new store pops up that is closer, they will go to it. If another store offers great deals, they will go there. It may be a video store's largest audience, but it is also the group most easily swayed. The video store, therefore, has to find some sort of balance. If it caters to the artistic crowd, it risks not being able to pay its bills. If it caters to the entertainment group, it risks losing them to something better. Most video stores will err on the side of caution and cater to the entertainment group as that is far more easily predictable. A store knows it needs thirty copies of Transformers on hand the day it comes out. It doesn't even know if it needs one copy of House of the Devil.

Netflix erased that problem. It became, essentially, all things to everyone, and streaming only sweetened the deal. As the mainstream embraced the company, the company had to start dealing with more mainstream hits. It had to start catering more to that audience. It hasn't forgotten the viewer who demands more from a film (not yet, at least), but that is no longer its primary concern. As long as it still has enough to draw that audience in, which it does, it has them ... myself included.

Netflix took a chance, and it will lose some customers. It will retain more than it loses, though, and the company was correct in taking that gamble. I'm sure it knows another price hike soon will cause it to have a serious disruption and open the door for something better, and I don't think that's a risk Netflix is willing to take. It hasn't established itself as a thoroughly dominant force quite yet ... but it's getting there. One crappy Hollywood film at a time.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link may earn me a small commission.

The Sexual Savagery of Sea Creatures

2011-06-26T08:48:00.000-07:00

Humanoids From the Deep. If you watched horror movies in the '80s, you remember the title at the very least. If you remember more than that, your memory probably begins and ends at the fact that these sea misfits raped women. At least that's all I remember about the film. I think I'd rather remember nothing because the film wasn't all that great -- another example of a concept that sounds much better on paper.

I first saw this at a friend's house with my friend's stepfather. The entire visit was uncomfortable to say the least. When the stepfather wasn't calling my friend an "asshole" and ordering to fetch a beer, he was making inappropriate comments. I was probably twelve or so at the time, but I still didn't need to hear the casual way he referred to the sexual assaults on screen. (Example: As one of the humanoids swam up from the depths to attack a female swimmer, the stepfather waited until the humanoid neared her vagina to say, "I guess he's going to eat her more ways than one.") The whole visit took on the air of a prologue to a snuff film, and Humanoids ... didn't help the situation one way or another. To this day, my feelings on the film are clouded by that visit.

The film has its following, as most bad movies do, but the reality of this "monsters-want-to-mate-with-human-women-for-no-real-reason-other-than-to-give-viewers-glimpses-of-breasts" bomb is that is disjointed (that's what happens when you have two directors working against each other) and utter nonsense. It does, however, contain the two ingredients that appeal to the base nature of teen boys of that era: gore and nudity. Apparently, based on the leering and comments by my friend's stepfather, some people never seem to outgrow it or look at it in any other context than masturbatory fantasy material.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link can earn me a small commission.

One Night in Bangkok

2011-06-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

For all the business The Hangover Part II has raked in, there are those who are less than enamored with the film. (Felix Vasquez, Jr. of Cinema Crazed has one of the best reviews of the film, positive or negative, that I've read.) The criticisms lodged at it range from the fact that it isn't funny to its level of depravity, and then there is the biggest, most damning criticism: It's just like the first film.

I liked the first film. I liked it a lot, actually. I feel like it worked on many different levels, including the realm of the surreal absurd that I tend to be drawn to when I look to see a comedy. The sequel is a clone of its father, so if you didn't like the original you aren't going to be swayed by this one. (Of course, if you didn't like the original there is no reason to watch the sequel unless it were to torture yourself.) My enjoyment of The Hangover is the exact reason why I liked the latest installment (and, truthfully, I hope it's the last) of this cultural juggernaut.

I wasn't expecting a bold, new direction. I wasn't expecting a sophisticated comedy. I was expecting it to be even more over the top and was hoping it would be even more surreal (it wasn't, but Alan, played by Zack Galifianakis, was up to par in his ability to tap into what makes Andy Kaufman so interesting to me). If the film did a radical departure from what made the original so appealing it would only disappoint people. Director Todd Phillips and the multiple writers had to do was make a choice. Would they go back and make the same movie and please all the fans, or would they stray so far from the original that it could be another movie all together? People like these characters. (I actually like the characters more than the situations they find themselves in.) People want to see them struggle with insanity. It's why they liked the original, and it is why many sequels are essentially the same movie with different trappings. (Sometimes not even that.)

The criticisms lodged at The Hangover Part II are fair and accurate for the most part. They, like the inevitable sequels, are expected, however. When dealing with something like this film, the only thing that really matters is: Did it set out to do what the cast and crew intended? In the case here, the film's goal was to make the fans of the original laugh. There was nothing there that said the film was trying to win over a new crowd. When you are that successful the first time around there is really no need to try. In that sense, it succeeded. For those looking for something wildly original and different, well, there was no reason to see the film in the first place. Nothing about it even indicated that it would be a departure.

Are the criticisms lobbed at the film as lazy as the film itself? Yes and no. No film is above criticism. It's the critic's job to point out what he or she likes or dislikes about a film. In this case, however, it was too easy. It was just as easy, in fact, as it was for the filmmakers to come to the conclusion not to change a thing about the original film when going back to the mine. It looks like everyone played the proper role here and didn't deviate from the script. Isn't that what sequels are all about?

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on a link may earn me a commission. I suggest reading Vasquez, Jr.'s piece, as it is quite good and he has a great site. I did not get a press pass to review this film, and nor would I accept one.

The Lost Coast Tapes

2011-06-05T19:52:00.000-07:00

I got the word on Thursday night, a film crew was in town shooting a movie down the road from my house in a park. Not much was known. The crew was shooting by the pond, there were craft services set up for what appeared to be about "80 people." A large prop log draped with vines was next to a set tent, and there were plenty of trailers nearby for the cast and crew. I had seen the trailers earlier and had noticed an increase of traffic, but nothing made me think it was for a movie. One person reported the film was a horror film about Bigfoot, something that has been seen in this neck of the woods quite a few times, and that the crew had been in Weaverville or Willow Creek the previous day.

On Friday I checked it out and saw a smaller craft services table, but a bunch of trailers and film types standing around. That's about as far as I got as a family matter came up, but as I have learned by arcane sources like our local paper and the Internet, the film's working title is The Lost Coast Tapes and it is due out in 2012 starring Ashley Wood.

I figure it is a "found footage" (like The Blair Witch Project or Cannibal Holocaust) movie, which I tend to enjoy. I also happen to enjoy Bigfoot, so I will probably see this one.

The pond they shot at has been in used in films before, notably the original television mini-series Salem's Lot, which was also filmed in nearby Ferndale (a town that hasn't changed much since David Soul was there). None of this is really all that important, but it is pretty neat nonetheless. Humboldt County has got some great film environments (see the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi) and has plenty of places (and drugs) to keep the cast and crew occupied in the down times. I have no idea if The Lost Coast Tapes will be worth watching (I instantly thought of the SyFy network when seeing the trailers), but I'm sure plenty of people around here will be renting it/tuning in/going to the theatre. We're no Hollywood up here, and some film experiences have let the locals with a bad taste in their mouth, but we also support whatever films are shot here ... though sometimes we wished we would've avoided them (The Majestic comes to mind).

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on the links may earn me a small commission, which I will use to go see this film when/if it comes out.

Something Obscene for Your Viewing Pleasure

2011-05-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

Fans of independent publishing know the names Barney Rosset, Grove Press and Evergreen Review. Part pornography, part poetry, part politics, these publishing venues and the man behind them were at the forefront of the anti-censorship movement for some time before it all went to hell. There were wiretaps, court cases, bombings, financial hardships and failed relationships along the way, but Rosset stood tall and tried to rise above. He was a man with a mission, and that mission was to bring the works he enjoyed into the public eye.

Obscene is a documentary that takes Rosset from boyhood to AARP status, and it doesn't flinch from any of the less-than-savory aspects of the publisher's life. While he may be canonized as the man who brought Samuel Beckett to the forefront, he'll also be remembered as the man who wouldn't take a Jewish wife and was vocal about it.

Grove and Evergreen Review brought names like Ginsberg, Burroughs, Che Guevara and others into the culture, often with a fight. If it wasn't for Rosset, however, we most likely wouldn't have some of those creators' later works (and nor we would have all those Guevara shirts). Rosset, who fought hypocrisy every step of the way, thought it was important to get these names and works out there, and he was right. This documentary proves it.

Watching this film is an education in censorship, civil disobedience and the methods our government will use to suppress dissenting opinion. It may open some eyes, or may just serve as little more than preaching to the choir. Either way it is a fascinating, important film that documents a time in history that can't be replicated today as anything and everything is just a click away and the art of dissent is now nothing more than fodder for YouTube. It's nice to have a film, however, to remind us of how we got here, for better or worse, in the first place.

Mandatory Obscene FTC Disclaimer: I did receive this film free for review purposes. Clicking on a link in it may get me a small commission, which I shall use to purchase pornography.

The House of the Devil

2011-05-06T06:38:00.000-07:00

I do enjoy horror movies centering around real or supposed "Satanism." Not the Satanism of the Church of Satan, which is fascinating in its own right, but the movie kind. You know, seemingly "normal" people (often senior citizens) engaging in dark arts meant to bring about something evil through a ritual of some sort. The movies pretty much follow the same pattern, but it's a pattern that works.

Enter the 2009 The House of the Devil.

This film looks like an '80s horror movie. From hairstyles to cinematography, everything about it screams that it was made when Back to the Future was on everyone's mind. It's an effect that feels both out of place and perfectly at home at the same time. Even the plot feels like you've seen it before ... because you have.

A babysitter takes a job under strange circumstances at a strange house inhabited by strange people. She then finds herself part of a Satanic (again, movie Satan) ritual during an eclipse. The end has the usual "surprise" awaiting viewers. It's the same plot that's been used before, but it feels kind different because there hasn't really been a movie like this in quite some time. Granted, there have been other movies dealing with similar themes recently (The Last Exorcism, for example), but they all look modern. Director/writer Ti West understands what people who grew up with horror movies in the '80s remember and love, and he faithfully reproduces it here. It is unapologetic, too. It doesn't make social commentary. It isn't cynical. It follows the formula to the proverbial "T," and that makes it work.

I saw this movie over a month ago and I keep revisiting it mentally. Dissecting it; thinking about why it works so well. I streamed it over Netflix and had some issues with lag here and there, but stuck with it, and am thoroughly glad I did. While I usually like my films darker, I can appreciate exactly what West did here. Rarely do you find a director who sets out to do something and pulls it off without a hitch. Watch this, and if you don't think you're watching something from the '80s, well, you never watched a horror movie from that time period.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did not receive this movie for free. Click on a link will possibly earn me a commission. Hiring babysitters will usually cause bloodshed.

The Hangover Part 2: More Hangy Overness

2011-05-05T06:10:00.000-07:00

I put off watching The Hangover for a long time. It looked utterly stupid, and the recommendations I was getting didn't help its case. Then one night I caught a scene on cable (naked Asian guy jumping from the trunk of a car), and realized I was the one being a moron here. I love naked Asian men! This was a movie I had to see.

So I watched it ... several times. And while it is not my favorite film comedy of all time (that title goes to Caddyshack), it ranks right up there, primarily due to Alan (Zack Galifianakis). That character, who lives in his own little world, is perfect. The odd things he says and the way he says them (the Jonas Brothers reference, the Wolfpack speech) make that character brilliant. (Anyone who knows me should not be surprised by this.)

Sequels usually don't impress me much. I will be giving this one a shot. The Hangover Part 2, due out later this month, is going to do extremely well at the box office. I'm glad Mel Gibson isn't in it. (Between making Jesus porn, ranting against the Jews, calling women "Sugar Tits" and threatening women he screws, his star appeal is pretty much lost on me. He's kind of become the Morton Downey, Jr. of the acting world.) I'm very much looking forward to this one ... I just hope it doesn't disappoint, which it could, and since it was such a huge hit the potential for colossal disappointment looms over it like a pregnant storm cloud.

There are several ways this film could go wrong. Seeing Ken Jeong back in it is, I would surmise, a bad sign. (As much as I love naked Asian men, this needs other naked Asian men ... perhaps wrestling or something.) If the character can return in a way that makes sense, I'm all for it. Yes, it's a small world, but it ain't that small. To just randomly run into this character again says, "Fans loved him the first time. They'll love him this time, too, regardless of whether or not his appearance makes sense." Revisiting the same storyline and gags from the first one (something very tempting to do in a comedy -- what worked once will work again) would also be a problem.

I'm reserving judgment, though. I'll go see it. It will get my money. I will probably laugh. If this gets fucked up, though, I won't be around for a third trip with the Wolfpack.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: Clicking on one of my affiliate links could earn me a small commission, allowing me to buy drugs to dose my male friends and do fun stuff with them.

The Insidious Problem

2011-04-15T06:29:00.000-07:00

If you plan on seeing Insidious, but haven't yet, you may want to skip this blog post. To get to the problem with the film, I have to reveal part of its plot.

I was very hesitant to see Insidious. I don't know how a PG-13 horror film can be effective. I realized it was a "ghost" story, so to speak, and that it probably wasn't aiming for emotionally disturbing, so that weighed in its favor. Then there were the good reviews. A lot of them. So, accompanied by a certain female companion, I went.

I was reasonably pleased. There were too many cheap scares (the kind that cause you to jump in your seat, which I hate because they are easy), but overall the film was very creepy ... until the end.

The movie doesn't fail in its attempt to deliver a good scare, but it does falter, and that is because the location switches. Toward the film's climax, part of the action takes place in a realm called The Further. This is the place you go when you astrally project. This is where the scares stop.

Previously in the film, the scary moments all took place in the young married couple's home. This is a setting with which everyone is familiar. When something happens in a house that is otherwordly or out of place (a man standing the corner, music playing by itself), it is freaky. When things happen in a realm unknown by viewers, a realm where seemingly anything can happen, the scares disappear because the rules of normality no longer apply. Ghosts and demons don't usually inhabit our homes. Therefore, when they appear it causes a scare. Visit their dimension, however, and they seem a hell of lot less special.

This almost tanked the movie as far as I am concerned. When the father character of Patrick Wilson goes into The Further to save his son, it had one or two unsettling moments, but that was it. All the fear that had been built up earlier in the film was now diffused. I felt no tension because I believed anything could happen, and if anything can happen, anything can be undone. Had I directed/wrote the film, I would've discussed The Further, played it up as a horrendous place ... and then never showed it. I would have had plenty of scenes of Wilson in his chair, seemingly sleeping, but in The Further. I would've kept the camera on Wilson and those in the room and instead of showing this foggy other world, I would've had various noises sounding (gnawing sounds, ghastly moans, metal on metal, etc.). Wilson would have been in obvious physical and mental distress. Bite marks would appear on his face. Viewers would be waiting for something, and would have no idea what they would get. When the action in the film that really exists (and not my version) turned back to the house, with Wilson and his son re-united, I would've kept that all in. Bringing The Further into our world was a good idea. Bringing our world into The Further was not.

If you have to expose your scares, it's always best to do it in a familiar setting. After all, what is scarier, coming home and finding a stranger sitting in your chair, or breaking into someone's house and seeing them sitting in their chair? Obviously it's the former. The familiar breeds a feeling of safety and comfort. Disrupt it, and you've got your audience right where you want them.

Insidious was still a good film. Underrated, even. It almost derailed itself, but managed to salvage some its momentum. Had The Further never existed in physical form it would almost be perfect. Maybe they'll get it right with the inevitable sequel.

Galaxy of Terror: Crazy Shit in Space

2011-04-14T22:36:00.000-07:00

Not a scene from "Star Wars."

As I write this, I find myself suffering from some sort of stomach bug. Perhaps it's food poisioning. I have no clue. I'm not a doctor. The pain I'm feeling brings to mind a movie I was once obsessed with seeing. Galaxy of Terror. If you've seen it, you understand why I thought of it when I was sick.
The reason I was obsessed with this 1981 sci-fi horror film was for one reason and one reason only: the movie poster. The poster sold this movie. It had everything a young boy could want to see in a movie. Skull-faced monsters. A strange planet. A female in distress. A title that dripped blood. It was, quite simply, really freakin' cool.

It wasn't until the movie came out on VHS that I was lucky enough to see it. At the time I found it pretty incomprehensible. I was young. I understood the worm rape scene that gets a lot of press, but the entire thing was a nightmare of half-baked ideas, special effects that are laughable now (but were pretty cool at the time), and a cast and crew that is memorable in its own right. The plot involved a giant pyramid, experiments in fear, and pseudo-philosophical nonsense ... at least that's how I remember it. Looking back at it now, though, shows that it makes a lot more sense than the Scream franchise.

How could I not like it?

The most noted member of the crew other than producer Roger Corman was none other than Mr. Titanic himself, James Cameron. That's right, Avatar! The guy behind the big smurf movie was Production Designer and Second Unit Director on this piece of cult cinema. Wikipedia reports he even figured out a way to get maggots to wriggle on demand. It involved a metal plate and electric current. Genius. But wait, there's more.

The cast reads like a wish list for any film you'd want to make but don't have the money to pay anyone. Erin Moran! (You know her as Joanie on Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi). She plays a woman with some kind of mental powers, and spends most of the film looking utterly apeshit insane. I imagine if you ever need a film where a woman looks nuts all the time, she's your gal. (Incidentally, I've met Moran and she's kind of a bitch. I can understand that, though. If you go from a highly rated sitcom with Opie and Henry Winkler and then wind up in Galaxy of Terror, you'd be kind of a bitch, too.)

Then there's Robert Englund. Oh yeah, you know the name. One, two, Freddy's coming for you. Three, four, better lock the door. Five, six, grab your crucifix. Seven, eight, better stay up late. Nine, ten, never sleep again. Freddy Krueger himself. Minus the glove and sweater, though.

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects) rounds out the cast with My Favorite Martian Ray Walston and Laura Palmer's mother on Twin Peaks, Grace Zabriskie. Pay dirt.

Forget the fact that the story is a hodge podge of ideas. Ignore the dated special effects. What I really want to know is: Why hasn't this been remade yet? It seems absolutely ripe for the picking by Hollywood, the Land of Remakes and Sequels. This is tailor-made for it, and quite honestly seems like it may have been ahead of its time. I'm against remakes, but I'm sure if one were announced it would drive a whole new crowd to the original (with it's glowing red heads and raping worms), which I fully support.

With exploitation film enjoying a bit of a resurgence in a newer form, Galaxy of Terror could quite possibly bring in some real dough (especially if some enterprising director were to cast Lindsay Lohan, as she was quite enjoyable in Machete).

Obviously, the poster may have been the coolest part of this film, but there is a part of me that thinks this is pure genius. I found the clip below on YouTube. You can really get a good feeling of what the film is like. Over acting. Erin Moran's crazy lady eyes. Surreal sets. Yeah, it has genius written all over it.

My stomach is still killing me, and I'm still thinking of how the film made me feel back in the day. I imagine my young, bad self was mightly ticked off at the old bait-and-switch tactic. I'm sure I didn't understand parts of it (something I'd still have issues with today, I imagine), and the worm scene probably made me uncomfortable at best. Looking at this cast and crew and what they did and didn't go on to do makes me think that without this film, leads me to believe this movie was special in more ways than we can imagine.

I wonder if Cameron thinks about it anymore?

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I did NOT get this film to review. I should probably thank someone for that, as I'm not sure I could really sit through it again. Clicking on my affiliate links may earn me a commission, which I'm sure will be more than what this movie grossed it's opening 8 weeks ... if it lasted that long.

Why I Despise and Distrust Hollywood

2011-04-03T07:47:00.000-07:00

I am asked from time to time why I despise big-budget Hollywood with such passion. I don't hate every big-budget film, of course, but I do loathe the process that brings them to the screen. The process has nothing to do with art and everything to do with business, and I think that sort of environment ensures that things like A Night at the Roxbury comes to existence.

That "film" exemplifies most of what I hate about Hollywood. It is a film so bad, not even basic cable shows it, yet it got made and almost anyone with half a brain could've seen it would've been horrible. In fact, I bet most Hollywood executives thought it would be bad, but trudged on with the greenlighting simply because they saw money to be made. (It almost grossed twice what it cost to produce it, so the execs weren't far off. Never underestimate the stupidity of cattle.)

The idea for the film probably came about by men who suits thinking that since the Saturday Night Live skit was enjoyed by people, these people would love seeing skit drawn out on the big screen. There is some logic in this. SNL, at the time, was not exactly known for being on the cutting-edge of comedy. (It still isn't, as far as I'm concerned. And for those who think it is cutting-edge, understand that the show routinely engages in censorship of ideas, not just profanity, so it is far from anything goes when it comes to comedy.) Surmising that the SNL crowd would not have enough common sense to stay away from the film, the idea was given the go-ahead, and the execs were sort of proven right. Critics hated it, but people saw it and helped it gross a little over $30 million when it cost a mind-staggering $17 million to make. Not bad for something I'm convinced everyone knew was doomed to fail.

Predictable audiences enable Hollywood to make predictable movies. It's not the only thing that does that, but it helps dramatically. I would have little problem with this except for the fact that I believe it funnels money away from original films (of any ilk) getting made. Why take a chance on a fresh, never-been-heard-of comedy when you can make some green off a TV show skit? Business-wise it makes total sense. As for artistic and entertainment values, though, it leaves little to be desired. What makes the A Night at the Roxbury situation even stranger is that Hollywood knows that SNL movies are routinely panned (there are exceptions), but that original comedies often get not only box office dough but good reviews. Hollywood executives who greenlight this crap would rather go after the all mighty dollar than keep their reputation untarnished. Lorne Michaels and Amy Heckerling produced it. John Fortenberry directed it. (In case you don't recognize his name, perhaps it is because you never saw his other work, including Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful and Underfunded. Someone, probably many someones, gave them the okay to do the film, however, and those names are harder to find. They are responsible for that disaster of film just as much as the names we know (and if we have any sense, no longer trust).

That film, more than any other, is the perfect, shining example of why I despise and distrust Hollywood. Got a better one? I'd love to hear it.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I was not given a copy of the film in question to review. Thank God! If you click on any of my links, I may make a small commission because they are affiliates. This post is also being optioned for a movie starring none other than Tim Meadows! (Lorne Michaels is producing it.)

Joy Ride 2 and The Horror of It All

2011-04-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

I had to review Joy Ride 2: Dead Ahead for Film Threat recently. It was an exercise in self-control to not stop the DVD and throw it into traffic. Honestly, people who hate horror movies aren't far off the mark in their loathing when stuff like this exists. Read my review if you don't believe me. I'm not going to rehash it other than to say, if you're dumb enough to rent it and dumb enough to watch it, you deserve to have your time wasted.

As a horror movie fan, I have a lot to apologize for. The Friday the 13th franchise. Scream and all its sequels. Freddy becoming a wise-cracking anti-hero and forgetting about his child molester roots. The '90s. Of course, there are films I consider to be classics not only of horror, but of cinema, such as the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When I'm forced to watch something like Joy Ride 2, however, I first get embarrassed and then angry. Embarrassed that dreck like that passes as horror, and then angry that it does. If that's someone's first horror movie (and every horror movie is someone's first horror movie), then great -- there's nowhere to go but up ... if they give it a chance. That's the problem, isn't it? Some things are so bad people end up not giving their peers a second chance. Thank you, assholes.

I have a hard enough time defending my love of horror cinema. I don't need the "help" of crap like this movie. You make my job harder, and that's why I come down hard on the likes of you. Perhaps if I call you out on the crap you make, you'll make something better next time. Or maybe not. Maybe some filmmakers are quite content with making crap. I bet some of them even know it is crap. They just don't care because someone somewhere is going to watch it. That is as guaranteed as them churning out more garbage. Heaven help you if I get my hands on it, though. As you can see in my review, I am far from kind when a horror movie lets me down. And I'm near merciless when the horror movie turns out to cater to the stupid, too. Make better films, horror directors of the world. Make them scary, let loose, and for the love of everything holy, stop making sequels.

Mandatory FTC Disclaimer: I was sent Joy Ride 2 to review. I hated it. Read the review. If you click on a link or ad in this post, I may get a small commission, which I will use to see anything but a horror sequel. Promise.

Terror at the Futureworld Theme Park

2011-03-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

After the misfortunes at Westworld, you would think nobody would try again, but if there's anything we learned from Jurassic Park, people will stop at nothing to make dangerous theme parks with the potential of disaster. Hence Futureworld, the sequel to Westworld.

Peter Fonda and the oddly named Blythe Danner starred in this 1976 thriller, which featured a cameo from Yul Brenner, who starred in Westworld, which surely excited fans at the time. His cameo is in one of the strangest dream sequences I've seen on film, and you will come to this realization once witness with your own two eyes. It starts off as fairly normal and then turns into some weird romantic thing that is oddly cold (symbolic of him being a robot, I imagine).

Critics were not fond of this when it came out. I can understand why. There is a lot of time spent wandering around in tunnels by our reporter main characters as they look for clues to prove that Futureworld is some sort of sham. It is, of course, and they are right, but this conclusion could've been reached simply by spending about a half hour with the scientist/doctor involved in making the robots. He was an odd character, and any good reporter could see that is where the story lies. Rarely do you find anything by wandering around underground and throwing random switches. It can make for an interesting movie, but here it falls flat. You want to see robots tearing stuff up. Admittedly, seeing Blythe and Peter fend off samurai robots brings a smile to my face, but only for the "1976 factor." (The year anything and everything happened in mainstream movies.)

Futureworld is one of those forgotten relics that may someday be remade by some brave soul who is fresh out of ideas. Should it be remade? Of course not? But if Ryan Gosling and Sandra Bullock ever need to supplement their income, they should be pitching it.

Ridiculous FTC Disclaimer: I did not receive a copy of Futureworld to review. I did it out of the kindness of my own heart. If you click on any of the links here and buy something from Amazon, I will receive a small commission.

Sheer Torture

2011-03-18T06:23:00.000-07:00

I recently watched Hostel 2 for about the fourth time. I've made no bones for my positive feelings on this franchise, and I've often said I think the sequel is the far superior film. The characters are more engaging, seeing the entire process behind how the elite depraved procure their victims is fascinating, and the film itself shows that director Eli Roth is definitely coming into his own. Not everyone agrees.

Many critics didn't like it, citing the usual "gore" and "torture porn" tags. ("Torture porn" is a lazy term if ever there was one.) Movie goers must have heeded their warnings, as the film failed to live up to the first film in terms of sheer dollar amounts. (Wikipedia puts the film's final gross at $17 million, while the first film had an opening weekend of $19 million and went on to gross over $40 million. That is, in a word, pitiful.)

The homoerotic tones of the first film are still here, but involve females this time, and there is also a feminist undercurrent in the last act of the movie. While the first film had as part of its focus the typical "we are Americans, we can do anything," the sequel freed itself from such constraints, which enabled you to actually care about the characters more. That, coupled with the fact that the main characters were female, and we as a general audience always seem more emotionally involved with them on various levels in a horror film (they may be the sex to die, but rarely do we think they deserve it as much as the men do), which ultimately makes this film work better than Hostel. It could not exist, however, without the foundation laid by Roth's first film in the series.

The story of the first film is laid down again during the opening of the sequel in a very clever way. It is unlikely that people who saw the second film did not see the first, so the scene just re-established the basics. Knowing what we knew from the first film, though, set us up to understand that these torture kings were efficient and very good at what they do. We know going in that it is unlikely these women will escape the same way the first film's survivor did because we know the Elite Hunting Club doesn't make the same mistake twice. If it did, it wouldn't be in business. That puts the viewers a few steps ahead of the protagonists with absolutely no way to warn them. It's a good set-up on Roth's part, and it helps sell the film.

So why did it do so poorly at the box office? Sequels often make less than their predecessors. The first film was dramatically hyped and in my opinion failed to live up to the hype despite being pretty good. This film was less hyped and people may have thought "fool me once." And then there is the fact that the trailers made no secret about the victims being women. That either makes audiences turn away from seeing women tortured (though I normally don't think that is the case when it comes to a movie since females are often dangled as victims to lure in audiences, I do think it might have worked here because going into it you were fairly sure of their fate and few would want to stomach that), and it made far too many other people think that it would be the same film as the first only with women this time. It surely wasn't the story, which was far superior to the first film.

Time will tell how cinema history treats this franchise. It may be ignored for the most part, but I do believe that ten years from now people will still be discovering this gem of a sequel ... and wondering how the hell it did so badly at the box office.

Obligatory FTC disclaimer nonsense: I was not given a free copy of this movie to write about. I bought mine. Clicking on the ads for the movie in this posting (and buying them) will earn me a tiny commission.

And the Oscar Goes To ...

2011-03-08T06:00:00.000-08:00

As usual, the talk after the Academy Awards turns to the usual suspects for about four days: what was who wearing, the hosts' performance (Franco stoned, Hathaway lame), surprise moments (someone said "fuck" -- how shocking), what films deserved to win, which ones didn't deserve it, the ratings, the swag, and on and on. The E! channel seems to have several hundred hours of shows dedicated to after parties and so-called "fashion police" (which are apparently just like Nazis in the sense that they send fashion faux pas folks straight to the ovens).

None of this means anything, though. It's an awards show. A very boring awards show that gets it right sometimes, gets it wrong often, and seems (thankfully) out of touch with what most Americans watch. If it were in tune with the cultural zeitgeist, the show would be honoring The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, which was the sixth highest grossing film of 2010 according to Wikipedia. Imagine the horror of that awards show.

For people whose film knowledge is based solely on what they see on television and read in Entertainment Weekly, the Academy Awards show offers them a chance to feel cultured and as if they are part of something greater. For those who really love cinema of all types and delve into the history of film and filmmakers as a way of learning more about the art -- the awards is really nothing more than a write-off. You're happy when something good is acknowledged, but you understand it means little more than an ego boost to the participants. Great films are overlooked every year. That will never change. So what kind of validity does the show have for cinemaphiles? None. But for the average viewer with it mirrors their tastes almost perfectly. Boring, predictable and scattershot. People may be tuning in less and less, but they are still tuning in, and people are still talking about ... including me.

Oddly enough, I wasn't going to write anything on this subject except I overheard a snippet of conversation that made me think it was warranted. I heard one man tell a woman that he has as many of the Oscar winners lined up in his "queue" to watch. "I figure if they won I better watch them," he said without a trace of irony. And that's why I wrote this. A boring show with boring awards that matches the audience.

The Void Has Been Entered

2011-02-27T21:35:00.000-08:00

As many regular readers know, I am a huge fan of Gaspar Noe. He is my favorite director period. I Stand Alone and Irreversible were brilliant cinematic pieces that were emotionally brutal and among the best films ever made. As to be expected, I was looking very forward to Enter the Void.

I bought it as soon as I could, but waited to see it with Girl. Special movie. Special company. It didn't matter that I had a splitting headache (in hindsight, it was a bad idea seeing it in that frame of mind). I had waited far too many weeks for this.

The film is good. Visually it is unlike anything ever seen before. In time, this will become one of those "drug movies" (if it's not already at that place in cinematic cultdom). It is an ambitious story, too, the likes of which is hard to pull off. Had any other director attempted it, he or she would've failed. That said, it is my least favorite of his films.

My first problem is with the length. At around two hours and twenty minutes, it is way too long. I know Noe is setting the mood, but there are some scenes that could have been cut in time with zero impact on the film.

Then there is the fact that this movie did not grab me the way his other films have. There are great, terrifying, tense scenes, but nothing gave me that kick in the stomach feeling that was standard with I Stand Alone and Irreversible. Perhaps that is because we never get to really know Oscar. Shot entirely from Oscar's perspective, the camera is the character, and therefore we don't get any real insight on him. He reacts to every other character the same way. It makes it hard to care for him. Of course, that means most of our emotional currency is put on his sister ... and she is fairly one-dimensional, too.

There are Noe touches throughout the film. Tunnel shots. A camera that acts as if it is caught in a breeze. The touches are purely cinematography related, however. The story could've been done by anyone. Not everyone could've pulled it off, though.

It may sound like I am utterly disappointed with the film. I am not. It truly is an amazing piece of art the likes of which has never been seen before and most likely will never be seen again. Just look at these opening credits. Hell, I've never seen something like this.

Enter The Void is a ground breaking film. It is an important film. It's just not Noe's best film. Had I a chance, I would've watched it again today. As it stands, I will take it in again soon ... without the headache. I don't think my opinion will change much, but I know I missed something ... and those visuals were just too damn cool.

Advance Word on the Bonus Disc on the Upcoming Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo Trilogy

2011-02-13T21:11:00.000-08:00

2/22/11. Mark the date on your calendar, smart phone, Mayan stone disc thing -- whatever you got. That's the day you can get your hands on Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo Trilogy. If you're waiting for the Hollywood remakes, you're an idiot. These are the films to see. My reviews of the films will be on Film Threat (I have my review of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo there with the rest to follow). What makes this boxed set so special is the fourth disc. (And no, this is not the mysterious fourth movie based on the rumored fourth book, but that is talked about on this disc.)

The bonus disc is one of the few that really is a bonus for fans of this trilogy (which at this point is just about everyone and their mothers). You get a documentary that looks at Larsson's life, death, that fourth manuscript, neo-Nazis and just about everything else you can imagine. (You'll also be amazed at how much his father and brother look like him.) Also included are two very fascinating interviews with Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist. Those three things alone would make the boxed set worth getting, but then there are interviews with other cast and crew and the staging of a fight scene, which makes this thing top out at just over the two hour mark. Music Box Films has, again, scored a coup with this one.

If you haven't bought the other three films, this is going to be mandatory. The documentary on Larsson is spectacular and goes in-depth with the people behind Expo and the books. Of course, some of you may have already purchased the films not knowing this set was coming out. Those make great gifts, as you simply have to watch this bonus disc. (My screener copy actually had a glitch which made about ten minutes of the documentary unwatchable, but I still enjoyed it. Normally that would drive me up a wall, but I actually made my DVD player strain trying to take in every word I could make out.)

Again, don't wait for the (most assuredly watered down) Hollywood remakes. Go right to the source. In just a few days you will have an incredibly in-depth look as to why this is literally a global phenomenon.

Blog Photo Updated

2011-02-13T20:53:00.000-08:00

If you like it (and I do), give Felix Vasquez, Jr. all the credit. While you're at it, be sure to visit his site, Cinema Crazed. You'll be glad you did. Thank you, Felix.

The Woman

2011-02-02T06:11:00.000-08:00

The Woman is getting some strong press out of Sundance and causing some equally strong reactions from its audience. Hype? Maybe. Worth checking out? I will be. That's not issue, though. What I do find interesting is that people are saying it degrades women (I haven't seen it, but I have faith in Lucky McKee (who directed) and Jack Ketchum (who wrote the book it is based on) to make sure that it is far beyond a mere piece of degradation. Yes, the idea of a feral woman held captive by a family with a twisted patriarch who puts her through all kinds of abuse does cause one to take a few steps back, but degradation? No, I'll leave that to Jersey Shore.

This also leaves an unasked, but equally important question: What's wrong with degradation? Men have been degraded in film, but we usually look at that as though they had that coming to them. (Think Hard Candy, which was an excellent movie. Maybe he had some of that coming, but I urge you to rewatch it. Did it have to go that far? Was it warranted?) Hostel is another one. Why shouldn't there be some equality? Playing devil's advocate here is easy: violence happens in real life more to women than men, so it shouldn't be seen on screen. I don't agree with that, as in art anything goes, but I do think this leads to why we have such a visceral reaction to it on screen.

Violence against men in cinema is often justified, acceptable and sometimes even funny. When it is done against women, however, we tend to extend our sympathies and get enraged (watch the footage of the man escorted out of a showing of The Woman to see that in full effect). Because we often see them as victims in real life, we can more easily relate to them as victims on screen. It makes the story more compelling, and that is something art should strive for. (By comparison, Haute Tension takes its female lead and makes her a hero that goes through some pretty rough stuff and eventually makes her a nasty villain, but the audience can forgive all that because she is ape shit crazy. If that had been a male in the lead role, the audience would have wanted him to suffer at the end.)

I'm sure The Woman is not meant to be a study of degradation, but that of power. Who really has power in a realtionship? How far can you push things before they push back? Is violence justified in confronting violence? Important questions, and from the reviews I've read, this film investigates them. Yeah, it could have been a male that was captured and abused, but let's face it -- would you want to see that and, more importantly, would this even be an issue? Hardly. It wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.

So, who's the real sexist here?

To the Devil, A Son

2011-01-16T00:30:00.000-08:00

A serial killer. Arson. Just-released-from-prison-after-15-years-sex. Child abandonment. The near murder of a child by his adoptive father. Animal torture. An unethical child welfare system. Kidnapping. If all these things exist in a film it must be the 1990 family feature Problem Child starring John Ritter, Michael Richards, Jack Ward, Gilbert Gottfried, and Michael Oliver as the title seven-year-old who excels at violence. I kid you not when I mention those things. They are all in the film.

The film was not a critical success, though it did debut at number three in the box office, spawn two sequels (that's two more than Citizen Kane), and an animated series (one more than Citizen Kane). Not bad for something that wasn't screened for critics (a common practice for movies considered so bad that they won't pass the intensely critical eye of the A&E editor from a Wyoming newspaper).

Problem Child was rated PG, so you can imagine that the serial killer stuff and John Ritter going to murder his child are played for laughs, but those concepts are there nonetheless, and it all makes for a fairly dark film if you are to take it seriously. The plot involves a family that is duped into adopting a little boy who is nothing but a problem. He causes mass destruction, hurts animals, and sets things on fire. One can only imagine what he'd do when that erection would start to mean something. He also starts a pen pal relationship with a serial killer, who breaks out of prison to visit him (and later kidnaps him and his adoptive mother after he has sex with her on the kitchen floor). Disney this ain't.

Taken at face value, this film is kind of bold in its absolute commitment to bad taste. There are some gags that are actually funny, too, but as a comedy the whole thing kind of fails. (Though to be fair, a kid will probably like this and not get the entire underlying dark theme.) As a family film, it fails. Had the comedy been toned, though, it would've made a passable thriller. Watching it, I did not view it as a comedy. Instead, I looked at it as if it were real, and it comes out pretty damn disturbing.

I haven't seen the sequels, and I barely remember seeing commercials for the animated series. I can't imagine any of them being as twisted as the first film, however. That kind of magic really only comes around once ... and in this case it has happened by what I can only assume is a mistake or a really long lapse in sound judgment. (Considering that the director went on to do Beverly Hills Ninja I think it is safe to say it is a mistake.) If they do keep up with this film's theme, though, I will declare it as the most subversive family film franchise in cinematic history.

Entering the Void

2011-01-12T06:23:00.000-08:00

As I was sick yesterday, I thought it would be a good time to do some comparison shopping on Enter the Void, due out 1/25/11. I started, leaving Amazon for last, but in the meantime Amazon actually sent out one of those pre-order e-mails I rarely pay any attention to. $14.99 for 160 minutes of non-stop, trippy Noe? Throw one of the many books from my wish list on there and get free shipping? Done. I'm not the biggest fan of Amazon, but I do love seeing those boxes.

The lights will be off that day. The sound system in full effect. Perhaps I'll abstain until the weekend and make it a Noe weekend with I Stand Alone and Irreversible bookending it. (The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest comes out the same day. I may be getting that to review.) The rest of you may be waiting for Red and Secretariat with the same sense of anticipation, but I think I can safely guarantee that at the end of the day, after watching the film, I'll be far more satisfied.

The Devil's Rain

2011-01-11T08:19:00.000-08:00

2:56 a.m. I awaken to massive stomach cramps. I have been sick since Sunday night. Slightly alarming, but I think it is something I ate. (Organic mushrooms, perhaps?) As I lay in bed, my head started to do its usual spin of thoughts and I suddenly remembered The Devil's Rain. Maybe it was because I mentioned it to Girl during our Machete viewing session. Maybe it was because I find the movie incredible in its own way. May I was delirious with sickness. Either way, I think this movie deserves at least one viewing from fans of bad cinema. Not that it's horrible. Well, it is horrible, actually, but in a way that only Seventies films can be.

1975. Having John Travolta, Tom Skerritt, Eddie Albert, William Shatner and Ernest Borgnine together in a film where Anton LaVey served as an advisor can only mean it's going to be mesmerizing in some sense ... and it was, but not because of anything good.

The plot exists on the head of a pin and consists of a family curse and the usual Satan worshipping nonsense that was popular in that time period. Perhaps it was there to serve as a recruiting tool for the Church of Satan (of which Travolta later became a part of). Maybe it was an attempt to catch in on Borgnine's superstar power. The cast of characters, in an act of symbolism for the plot, end the film by melting in the rain.

Simply amazing.

If this movie had a different cast, it would not even be worth noting. The cast, however, makes this thing an object of magic. How these people were convinced to be in the same film together is beyond me (except that maybe they all needed the money, and Travolta wasn't a household name yet), but it seems like there would've been too many egos involved. What do I know, though? I was four when it came out, and I don't even remember seeing trailers for it. I came across it when I read about it and then caught it about a year later.

Why I thought of this in the wee hours of the morning is still a mystery to me. I'm glad I did, though. I'm going to lay down this morning, try to get better, and see if I can stream this thing through Netflix. I think it's time to revisit the great Satanic Beast. And I so wanna see Borgnine melt.

Enter the Void

2011-01-08T10:18:00.000-08:00

Enter the Void, director Gaspar Noe's latest, is due out on DVD later this month. I am a big fan of Noe, which means I'm salivating like a dog looking at a fresh leg to hump. I expect great things from the man, and I have yet to be disappointed.

The film never made it to my local theatre. That is chiefly because a few years ago a new company bought it (based out of Oregon) with the motto of money first, art later. We did, however, get The A-Team. I didn't even see that the "good" theatre in Arcata got it. I was invited down to Santa Cruz to take in a show, but timing didn't work out on that, though I believe it must have been spectacular on the big screen.

The usual outlets (Amazon and Diabolik) will have it, and I hear there are two different running lengths available, with the longer being the drug of choice in this case. That makes it easily obtainable, but still frustrating for someone who wanted to see it as it should be seen. I can't help but be a bit bitter thinking fans of things like Season of the Witch and Little Fockers never have this problem.

I will, of course, be adding this my collection. I have considered buying a Blu Ray player specifically for this purpose, and may still do it. It is that important to me. Had our local theatre, Coming Attractions, the one where hot dogs look old and the staff barely pays attention to whatever you are saying, shown it, my money would've went there instead. Coming Attractions, which goes out of its way on its site to link itself to the "acclaimed Oregon Shakespeare Festival by birthplace alone (an act of irony lost on anyone anxiously awaiting The Dilemma, has made it perfectly clear: the rabble is what it is after. All the rest can go buy Blu Ray players.

Important News for Stieg Larsson Fans

2011-01-05T20:07:00.000-08:00

I received an e-mail today that Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo Trilogy is having its street date moved. It is now due out 2/22/11. It's going to be a four disc set (regular DVD or Blu Ray -- I wish I had a Blu Ray player at this point), with some nifty extras.

Of course, these films are being remade for American audiences, so you may want to get this before all that is good about this series is destroyed by Hollywood. It will retail for $59.95 for the regular DVD set and $79.95 for Blu Ray. I'd run the Amazon ad with this post, but Blogger is having all kinds of difficulties tonight, and it's been a pain in the arse just to get this posting up.

I'm recommending this one big time. It's got the original films, a documentary and a bunch of interviews. February is going to be a good month.

Too Much To Take

2010-12-25T13:26:00.000-08:00

Like everything director Takashi Miike does, Imprint leaves an impression. Originally created for the Showtime series Masters of Horror, Imprint never saw the light of day on that network due to it being too disturbing. Mick Garris, the series' creator had asked Miike to tone it down before Showtime saw it. I like Garris, and when he is asking a director to tone something down, there is probably a reason. I never felt, however, that the Masters of Horror series was all that controversial in nature, so I took the stories of Imprint's fright factor with a grain of salt.

After watching it, I can understand why Showtime wouldn't air it. If I had to put my finger on it, I would say it is the copious amounts of aborted fetuses that had something to do with, and not the torture scene (though that was pretty chilling).

Watching Imprint is kind of like watching a nightmare unfold. The acting is sometimes over the top. The visual aspects of the story seem off-kilter (one of the main complaints about it that I've heard from people is that they can't tell what time period the story is supposed to be set in -- it looks like it is older, current and slightly in the future all at once). And the narrative is erratic in places. It works as a disturbing tale, and its conclusion is open to interpretation, but I must say I find Audition to be more cohesive and enjoyable.

Miike is a director who is no stranger to controversy. People have called his work overly violent, but I think it is something far more powerful than that. His use of violence is almost poetic. He doesn't use the hack-and-slash route many American directors go for. He is more subtle. Because of that, he is more effective. People can watch Jason Voorhees cleave someone with a machete and say, "Damn, that was bad ass." But make that same person watch the torture scene from Imprint were burning incense is applied to a woman's armpits and you can physically feel that work. There is far less blood involved, and incense is no machete, but the effect on the viewer is far stronger than most things that come out of America. This is, however, not a cultural difference. It is a difference of direction and artistic vision. Miike wants every scene to have a specific impact. Your standard director just wants the blood to flow.

Imprint may have been too much for Showtime's perceived audience (though I doubt the network would have received as many complaints as it thinks), but it can be seen on DVD and through Netflix streaming. It may not be a Christmas movie, but it sure as hell beats the NBA or whatever other shit is playing.

Crime Pays

2010-12-09T06:35:00.000-08:00

I received The Sicilian Girl to review and actually got to sit down and do so the other night. I can't go too heavily into the film here, as I am revieiwng it for Film Threat, but I can at least comment on its genre: the crime film.

(Actually, this is more like a bio pic set in the happy-go-lucky world of the Mafia, but chances are viewers are watching it because of the crime element.)

Crime films tend to be insanely popular. Especially when it comes to films that focus on the Mafia. Maybe it's the Mafia's values or audiences living vicariously through the characters on the screen. Either way, the idea of organized crime captures the movie audiences' attention just as well as a loud explosion or a "really cool car chase." Unlike those two things, however, the crime film doesn't just capture the attention of the easily distracted. It captures minds across the vast demographic ocean.

It's not just our fictions, either. Americans, and I suspect it is true in other countries as well, love their crime in real life. Mr. Simpson. Dahmer. Gotti. Manson. Cooper. We follow news coverage. In fact, for some that is the only news they follow. It would appear that we are kind of sick to be fascinated by such things. I am fascinated by it (in particular, serial killers). I enjoy the fictional stories and the real coverage, and I think I may have pinpointed one of the reasons why these stories are so popular.

As a culture, we relate to one another on some level. Very few of us feel so vastly isolated that we can't find some common ground (and those who do often become the type of person we watch a movie about). So when we see a film about a "criminal," we, actively or inactively, try to relate. We look at the choices they make and, if the filmmaker did his or her job correctly, we can understand them. And then we look at ourselves and think about the choices we'd make in such a situation. High road or low road? Risk getting caught? Going out with a bang, or turning snitch? One last drug deal because the cops are closing in and it will give us enough to get to Mexico? Stop choking the person at the last minute and try to start over with life? We like to put ourselves in their shoes. We like the idea of justice, but we also like the idea of sticking it to The Man. It's our last bit of rugged individualism ... even if it's in a crowded theatre with like-minded people.

We are fascinated with criminals because they are fascinating.

One of my favorite crime movies is The Krays, a wonderfully shot and acted story of twin brother gangsters that is as brutal as it is touching. It involves a world (British organized crime) that I have little connection with despite the fact that it is based on a true story. It involves people who were rarely mentioned here in America. It has values I don't normally subscribe to. In other words, on a surface level I have nothing to relate to in this film. I can't help, however, but loving the Krays' descent into humble psychosis, and though their world is as foreign to me as that of a goat herder, I can't turn away. I can't help but understand them and actually have some empathy for them. The crime film once again works because it appeals to the human in us all.

Romantic comedies, and their sappy way of looking at the world, only connect with a certain segment of the crowd. Science fiction films, by their very nature, alienate another segment, as do horror movies, even if they are about the human condition. Westerns have the same shortfall. In fact, most genre films alienate ... except the crime film. Instead of getting a certain amount of strength from alienation (something that can actually reinforce a genre film as they have their own rules to live by that don't have to be gone over with every new film), they get their power by inclusion.

These are powerful films in ways we probably don't even understand. Like all worthy art they make us examine things in our own lives, and in that way influence how we learn about the world around us.

Darth Vader may be film's most famous villain, but it is far easier to relate to Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde.

Eaten Alive

2010-11-16T20:31:00.000-08:00

Tobe Hooper? Check. Crazy-ass redneck in Louisiana? Check. A man-eating crocodile/ Check. Country music playing from a crappy radio? Check. Bare breasts? Check. It must be Eaten Alive. It's had about 800 different names. Regardless, it's an underrated film that apparently has a fan in Quentin Tarantino (compare the dialogue in Kill Bill Vol. 1 that Tarantino has his would-be rapist say with Robert Englund's character's dialogue in Hooper's film).

This is, of course, not my favorite Hooper film. That would be The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Both films do have similar themes, though Eaten Alive is nowhere near as nihilistic as the classic. (Marilyn Burns stars in both films, too, and both were loosely inspired by real people.) Texas ..., it should be noted, has won a place not only in horror film history, but has also earned its place in cinema history. Eaten Alive, however, never got the same amount of respect. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

Texas ..., as anyone who has seen it knows, is a brutal, nihilistic (there's that word again) ride where the tension builds until the film's terrifying conclusion -- the cinematic equivalent of being beaten. It is infamous for its depravity and gore, though those who have seen it know there is very little gore to be found.

Eaten Alive tries to capture lightning in a bottle a second time, but it doesn't quite work. There is more humor. The screen's villain isn't anywhere near as menacing as the family in Texas, and the depravity doesn't come close to what Hooper's audience was used to based on his previous film.

There is a creep factor to the film, though, that can't be denied, and when a little girl is terrorized you can see some of that Hooper sensibility come out. It's not quite as bad as the cannibalistic dinner scene from Texas ..., which came out in 1974 (three years prior to Eaten Alive), but it is still a nail biter.

When you think about it, Eaten Alive could only disappoint fans of Hooper's first film. There was no way it could really be on par with it. What film could? Whatever he could've created could only be met with a shrug. Considering that, it's actually quite surprising that Eaten Alive isn't a total failure.

I used to question whether or not anyone would even care about or remember this film if Hooper's name weren't attached. Watching with an objective eye, however, reveals a work that serves as a nice transition piece between the director's first film and some of the stuff that followed (The Funhouse and Poltergeist are two that come to mind that are far from the savagery of Texas ... but still share some common bonds with Eaten Alive like children in danger and villains from the outskirts of mainstream culture). It will never be as influential as Texas ..., but it is respectable in its own right.

The Hollywood Dinosaurs

2010-10-29T06:54:00.000-07:00

I'm currently working on a review of Dinosaur Valley Girls for Film Threat. This Donald F. Glut vehicle (yes, that Donald F. Glut) came out as a two-disc set earlier this year. It's available from Frontline Films and, of course, Amazon. I'm not going to go into the review here, because I'm saving that for Film Threat, but I want to make mention of what kind of movie it is.

As you can imagine by the title, this is a dinosaur/cavewoman movie that has its tongue wedged firmly in cheek. It's the kind of movie that you don't see in theatres anymore. Some may be thankful for that. Others, like myself, would prefer to see this over any of the feel-good crap that Hollywood shits out every few months.

Hollywood is driven by profit. I don't think that's a controversial statement. Movies like Dinosaur Valley Girls don't earn the kind of profit as Eat, Pray, Love. Conversely, they don't cost as much to make, either. Couple this lack of profit with the fact that there are far too many chain theatres all showing the same film, and you can start to see why public showings of such fare have gone the way of the (ahem) dinosaur. There just isn't money in it.

Normally I'd argue the point that we are missing out on some great art because the smaller, lesser-known pictures don't get a chance to be seen by the masses. I can't argue that here. This film isn't art. It's not meant to be. It's meant to be entertainment, and when low-budget entertainment can't even get major screenings, some of the magic of movies is lost.

It's been debated that audiences are more sophisticated these days. They won't tolerate these low-budget USA network-type fare. I can sort of see that, though I would state the only way audiences have become more sophisticated is when it comes to special effects. Today's mass audiences won't tolerate cheap special effects, but they will tolerate the same ridiculous stories done with a higher budget. In fact, they do it all the time.

I'll always value art over entertainment, and I won't make excuses for that. Every once in a while I prefer some junk food, however. Hell, I'd just settle for having the choice. There's really no reason why a multiplex owned by whatever corporation can't devote some screen time in its smallest theatre to some cheap, on-the-fly lesser known movies. They'll cost less to obtain, bring in some people who don't care for the latest big-budget nonsense. The only way you can see these little films these days is in independent theatres, and far too many towns don't have those.

The Girl With the Remake Tattoo

2010-10-28T06:26:00.000-07:00

Americans love to think we can do anything better than our foreign counterparts. The world has soccer, which culminates in the World Cup where teams from around the world compete. America has baseball and the World Series, in which two teams square off (both are usually American, though they could be Canadian). Then there's Americanized sushi (pathetic). War (Hitler invades, we drop the BOMB). And movies. The lastest round of remakes targets The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which was originally a Swedish film based off a Swedish book and which currently has two sequels.

The film is fairly well-liked. I reviewed it for Film Threat and was immediately a fan. I even made note in my review that it was being remade. So that begs the question: If the film is well-received (even in America), why remake it in the first place?

The first and foremost answer is: subtitles. The vast majority of American movie audiences don't like "reading" their movies. Fine. I understand these people must be appeased, though I am of the mind that if they don't want to read subtitles they can just miss out. That answer is too simple, however. I think the real answer is: Because we think we can do it better.

The movie did amazingly well at the box office. (The book is a bestseller, too.) I believe some vulture in Hollywood saw that and said, "If a foreign movie can do this well, imagine how much money I'd make if I did a domestic version of it!" Boom. The idea was born.

There is, of course, some truth to that notion. We do movies well. I can't think of any situation where an American film was remade overseas and outdid the box office of the original picture. I don't think it has happened (though I haven't conducted a thorough study). I still don't like the idea, though, and there are two reasons for that.

One, on a plainly personal level, I find the idea disrespectful. In my view it sends the idea that the original version is not good enough on its own. It makes it somewhat flawed, and needs to be fixed. I know not everyone thinks that way (and I have enjoyed remakes -- some more than the originals), but it still feels that way.

Then there is the fact that Americans make films for a dumber audience, and it makes films differently. Foreign films have subtleties there that are far different from American films, but are universal nonetheless. When an American remake is done, these often sublime moments are erased and we are often hit over the head with symbolism and message, as if we couldn't get there on our own with the original. In many (not all) foreign films made for a serious film audience, you take from the movie what you bring to it. In American films, you take what you are given. That's not entirely the filmmaker's fault. It's often what the audience demands.

I know plenty of you reading this have seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I ask you to think back to that unpleasant scene where Lisbeth was raped. Now remember her stiffly walking home. All I could think about during that scene, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that if this was shown in to your average American audience, there would be people laughing. There is the difference.

I don't plan on seeing the remake unless I'm reviewing it for some publication or site. The people I've talked to who have seen the original version don't plan on it, either. Some of you will call me a film snob or an elitist. (I've been called worse.) That's okay. I don't believe I'm a film snob (hell, I like some crap), but I'll wear the elite title any day. I'm passionate about the things I like. I study them. I defend them. The rest of you can enjoy Me, Myself and Irene or some other such nonsense.

Problems With Bees

2010-10-23T16:17:00.000-07:00

Back in 2009 I reviewed The Beekeeper for Film Threat. Later that year I also interviewed its star, Michelle Mueller. She was pretty damn good in the film, and was an incredibly nice person. In doing the interview, I also got in touch with the film's director, Sean Jourdan. He, too, was great to deal with, which led me to believe this could be the least dysfunctional indie film cast I've ever encountered ... if only based on those two.

Obviously I was behind the film and wanted it to succeed. Because of that, a few months ago Jourdan got in touch with me and asked if I would post my review to iTunes, since the movie is available there. I responded something along the lines that I'd be happy to help The Beekeeper out in any way I could. And this is where I suck.

I'm way behind on my e-mail. I get a lot of it at several different addresses. I'm not talking spam, either. E-mail from other writers, directors, actors, film PR companies, music labels and so on. I read it, and if it is time sensitive I get on it right away. If I think it can be held off a day or so, I do so. Of course, this "day or so" really translates into the fact that I have e-mails from March (it's October as I write this) that I have to get to. Jourdan's e-mail was one of those I fell behind on. Then I tried to post a link to the review, and I couldn't. In the movie business, that's called "insult to injury."

Luckily, Jourdan had already done so, which doesn't make me an less of an ass, but does mean that people interested in buying the film can see what I had to say first and realize it is very much worth watching.

I hate letting indie films down. I can't stand it, actually. Like there aren't enough obstacles in the way. I try to help as often as I can, but sometimes I drop the damn ball, and this was one of those times.

So, to Mueller and Jourdan, and everyone else in the cast and crew -- I apologize. And to you other readers, if you don't want to take my word on the film, here is a link to the film site where there is a slew of press about it. If you like dramas, it is well worth your time.

Some Film Picks For Halloween

2010-10-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

October. My second favorite month of the year. It encompasses all things scary. And while some people like Halloween to be silly or fun, I prefer it to be scary and terrifying. Below are a list of some films I recommend for watching this month to help put you in the terror mood. They are in no particular order.

1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Go with the original. It is a hallmark of American cinema, and it's documentary-style presentation still bothers people to this day. Until this film came along, total utter nihilism didn't really exist in American cinema.

2. Audition. Great date movie. Starts out as a romance and ends with torture. Lesson learned? Stay away from sweet girls. They'll stick needles in your eyes.

3. The Shining. Go with the Stanley Kubrick version. It's got a great cast, a wonderful soundtrack, and a director not known for horror, but who knows horror nonetheless. This film has become a part of our culture, and is referenced in television and in movies. If you haven't seen it, you can find out what the fuss is all about.
4.

4. The Devil's Rejects. Not exactly a horror film, but terrifying in its own right. Rob Zombie did the film world proud with this one, and it holds up to this day.

5. Cannibal Holocaust. One of the more extreme movies out there. It is not for the easily disturbed, and its footage of animals really being slaughtered turns off many viewers, but if you can stomach it, you'll get an interesting look into the world of reality television before such a thing even existed at the level it does now. Great stuff and historical.

6. Suspiria. Dario Argento's masterpiece is less a film and more of a twisted nightmare. I'd recommend most of his work, but this one has the best Halloween feel. It is not my favorite of his, but it fits the season far better than The Stendhal Syndrome, which is my personal favorite.
7
7. Halloween. John Carpenter's finest film. It is brilliant, and was his answer to the Italian giallos. It works, too. It is not a bloodbath, and nor does it have to be. As far as slasher films go, it is nearly sublime.

8. Nosferatu. You have to go with the original, silent film again. Watch this at night with the lights out. Try not to get creeped out. I dare you.

9. High Tension. A wonderful mind fuck of a movie. It won't make sense on the first viewing, but it will the second time around. See if you can spot the Maniac homage.

10. Frontier(s). Like the first film on the list, but with Nazis. This is one more reason why the French are doing horror better than ourselves. Yes, it is brutal, but it is well worth it.

11. Marebito. A very subtle film that draws inspiration from all over the place, including (seemingly) Lovecraft. It is a movie that creeps along, but the concepts played with are interesting and well-executed.

12.Videodrome. A pirate TV channel of snuff? James Woods? The images you see on screen causing cancer? Blondie burning her breasts with a cigarette? What's not to like? A film that may actually work better now than it did when it first came out. David Cronenberg is often an acquired taste, but this one is easy to get into. It is, however, hard to escape from.

13. Eaten Alive. A silly movie by most standards, but man is it creepy. That country music that always plays on the radio. That backwoods hotel. It all adds up to this weird movie where the man-eating crocodile is the least scary thing in it.

14. Amateur Porn Star Killer. Art snuff. Dangerous. Illegal. Not for anyone with ADD. It will make you feel dirty after watching it, but it is creepy enough to make your Sunday evening memorable.

15. The Thing. For flat-out monster films, John Carpenter's take on things has few equals. The sense of paranoia that permeates this film is contagious. The blood testing scene is as tense as anything done today (if not moreso), and when you watch the monster scenes remember that this was in the days before CGI.

16. The Provider. You may have a hard time tracking down this short film. I have it on VHS, and I don't know how many copies are out there. This is another one to watch in the dark with the lights out. What's it about? I can't give anything away, but I will say to keep your eyes open, because what you see in one spot in the house will give you chills.

17. The Blair Witch Project. People love or hate this film. I love it. Growing up surrounded by woods gave me a healthy fear of them, which is exploited here to no end. No, it's not real. It's also not a disappointment, either.

18. Peeping Tom. This film is a film lover's film. It's rare that it gets on those magazine lists that come out this time of the year. It was ahead of its time, and it still remains timely. This is a great examination of voyeurism, snuff, and deep, dark sexual trauma, but done in the most mature of ways. People did not like this film when it first came out. It made them ... uncomfortable, though by today's standards it is almost quaint. That is, until you start to think about what you are seeing. Then it just messes with you.

19 The Great American Snuff Film. Another one that isn't easy to track down. There is plenty not to like in this film, but it's uneasy insanity brings to mind the first film on this list again. Its rough edges really just lends to the madness, too.

There are dozens more films I could include, and I know I left out some that I would recommend to anyone. I wanted the list to be a bit eclectic, with something for everyone. There will be differing opinions, and I understand that. I welcome comments and recommendations, too. If the response is good enough, I may do a second part to this list.

Vakvagany

2010-10-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

Back in 2002 I reviewed Vakvagany for Film Threat. The fantastic James Ellroy lent himself to the film to present his take on what is being displayed, and that is what initially drew me into it. What I saw, however, left me reeling ... sort of.

After watching this documentary, which consists of found footage of a family from the 1940s and current footage of the children, whom the filmmaker tracked down, you can't honestly say you know what happened to this family. You can't honestly say you know what went wrong. At the time of my review, eight years ago, I wrote that what you bring into it is what you take from it. For me, my distaste for humanity translated over.

I've seen the film once in eight years and I still think about it.

It's not that the images I saw were so disturbing. In fact, I can't really recall a single image, but what you see on the screen is totally open to interpretation (and different narrators, including Ellroy, do come to different conclusions). What isn't so open, however, is the fact that when these children are found decades later they are the product of a family gone wrong. That sticks with me, much in the way Just Melvin, Just Evil, another documentary about a family gone wrong (and shot here in Humboldt County), stuck with me (and everyone else who has seen it).

Vakvagany isn't nearly as well known as Just Melvin, Just Evil despite having Ellroy on board. It is just as horrifying, but in a subtler way. (There is no denying what went wrong in the case of the Just family from Humboldt County. The documentary makes it fairly clear that a man who engages in molestation, rape, incest and murder is going to destroy his family.) The hints of what may have happened, heightened by the viewer's own experiences and thoughts, means this documentary gets in your brain and stays there. It flits around, unnoticed for months at a time, until finally surfacing again and giving you pause to think. Powerful? Very. But now that my view on humanity is even worse than before I think I may steer clear of watching it again.

I Dub Thee Unforgiven

2010-09-18T08:25:00.000-07:00

I recently watched Unforgiven for the first time. No excuse as to why it took so long, especially since a character (Saint of Killers) in one of my favorite stories of all time (the Preacher series) is based on director/star Clint Eastwood's character and I love the actor's old Westerns. I just never got around to it. Maybe it was because of Morgan Freeman. Sure, he's talented, but he rubs me the wrong way.

I was wrong in waiting, as this film, which moves slowly but deliberately, was an incredible meditation on the nature of violence and whether or not you can ever truly let go of your past. Taken on it's own, that is what it is. Taken as part of Eastwood's cinematic history and it becomes a reflection on his career.

The Western is America's samurai story, though the "cowboy" in real life was far less of a honorable person than the samurai. It is the closest thing we have to those warriors, and because of that we romanticize it. The rugged individual riding out on the prairie gunning down inhuman savages -- it all makes for a great story, but really does little to speak of for the history of racism and moral corruption (and let's not even speak of the commonplace homosexuality) that accompanied all that. It is part of America's history, but like most of America's history, it has been twisted into something it's not. Eastwood doesn't address that here ... at least not fully. Instead, he concentrates on what violence does to people, and in that sense this film is a thing of beauty.

When you first meet Eastwood's Will Munny, he is a widowed, bumbling pig farmer with two children. He also has a history. He was a crazed killer who gunned down men, women and children with no remorse. Life is different now, though. He had met a woman who changed him, and he plans on sticking to that. Without giving away the film's plot, he is presented with a situation that calls on part of that past he can't seem to call up until something horrible happens to his friend. Munny is responsible for his friend's fate, and that is when Munny calls upon whatever drove him in the past to help him wield a horrible vengeance. It is here that Eastwood returns to the man-with-no-name of his past movies. He becomes the good, the bad, and the ugly all rolled into one. If you haven't seen those previous films, you will still be moved by what is presented in Unforgiven, but if will mean more if you've followed Eastwood throughout the years.

My dad, rest his soul, was the one who introduced me to horror movies and to Eastwood. We would watch Sergio Leone's take on the myth of the West on Saturday afternoons. The Spaghetti Westerns would inevitably lead to some Dirty Harry movies. It was a good education for me, and it is something that has never really left me. While watching Kill Bill Vol. 2 I could see exactly where Tarantino got his inspiration. It was with this same sense of film history that I watched Unforgiven. It was like watching the culmination of years of contemplation, and it was unlike anything I ever expected out of a genre I pay little attention to, and for that I was pleased.

Can a Film Cause a Race War?

2010-09-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

If you've seen Machete you know it makes no bones about its feelings on illegal immigration. It shows those against it as gun-toting rednecks with little concern for human life, those who exploit it as greedy capitalists, and those who engage in it as good people just trying to get by. It's a grindhouse movie, so the simple, direct approach to the problem is to be expected. If you read the Internet mumblings, however, there are people afraid this film could spark a race war between Mexicans and their pale cousins to the North.

Charles Manson tried it. The government and your employer is always using the fear of it to keep you in your place. The divide between races is a great fear motivator. To think this film would promote it or cause it, though, is kind of missing the point. Machete, in its own blood-flowing way, is merely pointing out what already exists. There are strong feelings on the subject, and neither side is innocent or completely wrong.

As I wrote on my other blog, Cancerous Zeitgeist, the audience I saw it with really liked the anti-immigrant sentiment (ironically yelling at the screen in a display stereotypically attached to the black movie going audience). The group did not like it when whitey started to buy it, though. Seeing as the film was number two at the box office its first week, whitey didn't hate it that much.

I love the fact that a grindhouse film, which along with exploitation used to be the most dangerous cinema America had to offer, can inspire such fear and concern. It speaks well to the film, and unkindly to an ignorant audience. I doubt our leaders will be using it to highlight the problems of illegal immigration anytime soon, but in a perfect world maybe it would.

Then again, maybe our representatives are waiting for the sequels.

Thoughts on The Last Exorcism

2010-08-29T10:30:00.000-07:00

I had some apprehension going into The Last Exorcism. My chief concern was its rating, which is PG-13. With that in mind I knew it would not be too disturbing, the images would be toned down, and there would be a pitiful lack of masturbation with crucifixes. There were a host of positives working for it, however. I trust Eli Roth's taste (to an extent), it is filmed like a documentary, and it involved exorcism (which I love in films, though I'm not religious). So I went ... without little hope it would be tolerable.

It actually turned out to not only be fairly complex, but also one of the most anti-religious films I've seen in a long time. When I say "anti-religious" I don't mean that it condones religion. Far from it, actually. To say why I feel this way would give away far too much of the plot, as would going into the film's complexities, and it is still too new to being giving away those all-too-pervasive spoilers. Let's just say that if you see it, pay careful attention to everything on screen. Pay attention to things said by people, and pay attention to what the outcome of the film (which was actually the worst part of the movie) ultimately means. Think about what the film is trying to say throughout almost the entire running time, and think about its conclusion. If you don't see the complexities and the religious message, I'll return to it at a later time. You'll just have to trust me in the meantime.

The Exorcist is always going to be the gold standard of exorcism movies. The effect it had on people when it was released is legendary to this day. The Last Exorcism comes nowhere near matching the scope of the its predecessor, but I will tell you it did cause a girl in the audience to cry, which I was surprised by. Its ending also caused a lot of confusion, though not to the same degree that Paranormal Activity accomplished.

I don't have the weekend box office grosses at this point, but I suspect The Last Exorcism will place second or third in the race. I would be surprised if it placed first, but I've been wrong before. I still think far too many people want to see The Expendables because stupid ideas never go out of style. Or perhaps they'll be enamored with the garbage that is Piranha 3D. Either way, I'm fairly sure the amount of money pulled in by the film will have little to do with its actual impact. In my opinion, the movie proved you could do a thought-provoking PG-13 film with an unlikable protagonist, low key creepiness and an actual message. PG-13 and horror movies typically don't cut it for me. I like my horror to be disturbing, and the drones who make up the ratings board don't like to let disturbing into the minds of teens. In this case, it worked.

Time will tell if audiences will think the same as I do (that rarely happens). Critics have been giving the film favorable reviews, but we all know how the average moviegoer feels about critics. Will the audience come out thinking about the layers of religious and social criticism they have just witnessed, or will they just wonder if it were real or not? I know what I'd like to think, but like going into The Last Exorcism, I won't have much in the way of expectations.

An Easy Explanation

2010-08-09T07:01:00.000-07:00

There are times I am asked why I love the Kill Bill series so much. Besides the fact that it is an homage to just about every kind of film I love, there is the story. The story has actual heart and emotion. The second part is especially gripping. The scene above, while not the best scene in the movie (that would be when The Bride sees her daughter for the first time), it does exemplify why I rank this film as one of my favorites.

I could probably write a book as to why this film works so well. It can, of course, be seen as a straight-forward revenge film, but if you look deeper you start to see that it is all about motherhood and the bond between a mother and a daughter. That is also oversimplifying things, but that is part of the overall picture, something that is often missed in conversations about it.

I'll probably never tire of this film. It is one of the few films I would have given five stars to had I reviewed it on Film Threat. I don't think everyone is as enamored with it (it does help to have a background in Westerns, Italian giallos, martial arts films and the like -- but not necessary) as am I, but I know that most people at least get the spirit of it.

I watched this scene again this weekend when I was feeling a bit down. It helped boost my spirits, and it also made me pretty damn happy that I have quite a few strong females in my life. I appreciate that, as I believe a woman should be strong to deal with much of the shit men pull on a regular basis. As far as strong female characters go, The Bride is the pinnacle ... especially when you think about the fact that she never loses that maternal instinct. In other words, she remains strong without acting like a man.

A brilliant film with a powerful message. I hope I can someday write something as stunning as this film. I doubt I can, but I'll be satisfied if it's even half as strong.

Exclusive! Shane Ryan Vs. The World

2010-07-05T15:17:00.000-07:00

Director/writer/actor Shane Ryan is the kind of guy you ladies can bring home to mom. He's funny, smart and good looking. Of course, the fact that he makes movies is like the icing on a really cool cake. Lately, though, Ryan's life has taken a turn for the weird.

“First,” Ryan explains, “I make Warning!!! Pedophile Released with the impression it’s already got a set distribution deal (which it did with Cinema Epoch of course), but I was also under the impression that it would have no problem getting into Netflix (as all three of my APSK [Amateur Porn Star Killer films were rejected due to sexual content) as long as I kept the content to an R rating. We were also trying to get it into Blockbuster (which also rejected the APSK’s for the same reason) and were under the impression that the film would be perfectly fine for Blockbuster as long as I watched the content.”

Having Ryan or any director to monitor content is like asking the Colombians to monitor the cocaine traffic coming into the USA. It's not a director's job to monitor content. It's a director's job to tell a story and forget about things like the possibility of pissing off someone's grandmother. Regardless, Ryan is a guy who likes to please, so he gave it the ol' college try.

“In the end I have a film that has some nudity,” Ryan says, “but is used sparingly. The opening rape scene does not contain one second of nudity. We merely see the raped girl’s butt after the rapists have left (a butt can even be shown on regular TV). Later she’s in a sex scene (if you want to call it that) we’re she’s trying to survive by prostitution. The nudity is very brief and nobody is even in the nude scenes with her, she’s merely mimicking the sexual movement.”

Knowing what I know of Blockbuster, I can see this being a problem. If this were a Spielberg film, it would be hailed as great “art.” It's not a major studio release, however. It's an independent film. There are different rules for those who don't play the studio game. Ryan continues ...

“[The] two last times we see this poor homeless girl washing herself off -- a natural thing everybody must do shown in a very realistic fashion in a completely non-sexual, non-glamorous way as it’s a goddamn homeless girl just trying to keep clean. And, of course, we have a scene with Joanna Angel (completely non-sexual) were she has a breakdown and happens to be naked (just like the scene in the movie Thirteen where Holly Hunter has a breakdown while naked – no biggie).”

Ryan's right. No biggie. Nudity, the last time I checked, does not cause eye cancer. It does no harm. Hey, most babies are even born naked.

“This was supposed to be a quick one-week project that I ended up grueling on for 10 months and lost all kinds of sleep, sanity, money (and almost a relationship) over,” Ryan says. As if that weren't bad enough, the Netflix and Blockbuster problems began in earnest.

“Netflix and Blockbuster take a look at the film (supposedly) and reject it for sexual content just like that even though I thought we had no chance of a problem. We beg them (especially Netflix) to look again. They do, and reject it again for content. One reason I made this film (instead of finishing APSK3D) was so I could finally get something into Blockbuster and Netflix. Now, here’s the most fucked up, ridiculous, hypocritical piece of shit part. Netflix carries a film called The Hanger. This film has a scene where they show a woman’s vagina and asshole up close in your face (already way more explicit than my film). Then, a hanger is shoved through her vagina and what I think was a baby (I only saw this one scene and couldn’t hardly watch) is ripped out of her vagina in a shit storm of blood. Ok. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL, BITCHES?! (This was an exploitation movie not some Schindler’s List meaningful message film.) How can you ever explain why that is okay and a story about a poor homeless girl is not? Hmm. Now, if it’s the young age of the character, well, the actress was 22 playing a 15 year old. But all kinds of films are like that. But how 'bout this. Fat Girl, had a 12 year old character (played by an actress only 13 years old at the time) who is raped in the movie and we see her bare breasts! A child. That’s child porn! And Netflix used to carry this film and Blockbuster still does! Actually, between Netflix and Blockbuster, they carry Brown Bunny (a long real life blow job), Irreversible (a 10 minute anal rape scene, real blow jobs, bizarre graphic violence, etc), Baise-fucking-Moi (should I go into that, real hardcore sex over and over and over, a girl forcing herself to vomit while giving head, a gun shoved up a guy’s asshole to have his shit blown out his face, etc.,), Shortbus (all kinds of real fucking) and A Real Young Girl. (A 14 year old character who shows her vagina up close spread open while a guy puts worms and shit on her vagina. Are you fucking kidding? That’s okay, but a 15 year old character taking a shower isn’t?). So, I’ve never been so goddamn frustrated or confused or angry or downright sick of this world and flabbergasted on what the fuck makes something morally or artistically correct.”

I rented Philosophy of a Knife from Netflix, and that film is for more outrageous than anything Ryan has created. It's also a boring piece of cinematic bile, but that's neither here nor there. Ryan has obviously caused a problem, but not really with content.

“Now, I hear that it’s my title that was the problem, that my film might not have even been viewed. But Netflix has a goddamn movie called Young People Fucking. YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING!” You have got to be kidding me with the worst joke I’ve ever heard. They also have movies called Porn-O-Rama, Confession of a Porn Addict, Pornography, Sex Drive, Sex Pot, Sex Machine, Sex Sells, Live Nude Girls, Nude for Satan, The Story of Prostitutes, and the list just never ends of what could easily be deemed sexually offensive titles.”

Honestly, I cannot imagine what his tirade is going to do to search engines, but I imagine after this gets posted I'm going to have a lot more traffic to this blog. In all seriousness, though, this is an issue. A movie title should not get a movie ousted from Netflix.

“I hear,” Ryan says, “it’s because of the word ‘pedophile,' but they have Deliver us from Evil, which is all about pedophile Priests. They have The Woodsman, which is all about sympathizing with a pedophile. Little Children, which shows a pedophile trying to be good but the neighborhood doesn’t want him back. Smile Pretty, which is about a girl raised by a pedophile; Hard Candy, which is all about a 14 year old girl and a pedophile who wants her, [and so on]. So, why can’t we have a movie about a girl who’s boyfriend is accused of being a pedophile? Seriously, what goddamn reason is there for rejecting my films but not the hundreds of others I’ve been listing? Seriously, what the goddamn fucking shit? This is my fourth time in two years to go through this shit (four out of four), and I want a goddamn motherfucking reason before I start blowing motherfucking heads of in search for a goddamn answer.”

Ryan sarcastically answers his own question. “No, wait, I supposedly got it. It’s because the word ‘pedophile’ can’t be in the title. Okay, so that makes perfect sense. You can put 'porn,' 'smut,' 'naked,' 'sex,' 'nude,' 'fuck,' 'shit,' and 'rape' in the title and that’s okay. You can make a movie about sex offenders, naughty priests, pornographers, rapists; you can make a movie that sympathizes with pedophiles, hell you can even be a goddamn pedophile (i.e. Roman Polanski, Victor Salva) and it’s just fine (you’ll even win an Oscar), but if you put the word 'pedophile' on paper, on the poster, oh now, wait a goddamn minute. Now that’s, holy fucking shit, now that’s a problem.”

His problems with the film did not end there.

“...after ...Pedophile came out DVD Empire (which also runs a goddamn porn site, AdultDVDEmpire) not only rejected ... Pedophile, but they stopped carrying the APSK’s because of that, even though they had been carrying them for two fucking years! So, that’s that.”

That's that for that film, but Ryan is also working on Abducted Girl – An American Sex Slave. I think it's a safe bet to say that raised some eyebrows.

“A few years ago I heard about human trafficking,” Ryan explains, “and was genuinely creeped out and totally surprised. I didn’t realize stuff like that was happening in America all around us. I knew about rape, of course, and plenty of other things but not about this. Then, a year ago, I see an independent film called Holly, which was about sex trafficking overseas, but it was such a better and very touching film that it made me go, 'Wow, I have to do a film about this now.' I knew I wanted it to be in the US, and I knew I wanted it to be called An American Sex Slave. So, in March of 2009 I announced it (might I add to no success as only one little site posted it and the site doesn’t even exist any more). I get busy on ... Pedophile Released a few weeks later. I finish the film in October and find out the distributor wants me to make a film called Abducted Girl. I go, 'Hmm, okay. That sounds cheesy, I know there’s already a really cheesy sexploitation movie out right now called Abduction, and I just pray they don’t want me to make a film like that.”

Ryan then makes a fatal mistake.

“I call [the distributor] up and say, 'Iif I can make this a very serious movie about a serious issue, like say that Jaycee Dugard case I’ve been hearing about the past few weeks, then, yeah, okay, I’ll definitely do it.' They said that’s exactly “the kind of thing” they were talking about so I said, 'Then I’m going to call it ‘\Abducted Girl - An American Sex Slave. We’re hearing about all of these girls being abducted and sold into sex slavery in America so why don’t I just tell the title how it is?”

Strike one.

“I’m trying to build up some indie press for it in hopes to get a few known actors I have connections to interested. When building the press I say it’s very loosely based on something like the Jaycee Dugard case, so people know to take it seriously, but that’s it – it’s just an inspiration, I already announced months before her discovery, before I ever heard of her, that I was doing a sex trafficking movie. We were changing all of the names, making up plenty of things (as I actually didn’t know a whole lot about it), basically I was just looking for some sort of serious true-to-life idea to build my ideas around so it would have a real feel and a real impact. Sort of like my Romance Road Killers film I tried to make a while back. We based it all around Charles Starkweather and Carol Ann Fugate but we changed the names, the ethnicity of the girl, the time period, everything that happens involving the killing, etc. It was more my life by far than Charles Starkweather, but the idea of this young couple who end up killing people and having multiple sides to their story is the only thing we really kept. It’s like two people might live in the same apartment building but what’s inside the two apartments might be as different as Heaven and Hell.”

The sharks, by this point have started to circle.

“Anyways, somehow this bitch reporter from Sacramento hears about it and wants to do a story for CBS. She sounds really nice and supportive until she hits record on the mic and starts taping the interview then turns into this defensive feminist bitch sounding whatever. I told her I wanted the film to focus on the Stockholm Syndrome, the relationship between the victim and the predator that would obviously be very strong if it’s an 18 year captivity. But that it was not the story of Jaycee. she made it sound like I was doing it directly about her. She then says, “Why do you have quotes on your web site like ‘a disturbing movie’ and ‘pure exploitation’?' (This would be for the APSK’s). I told her you’re quoting two out of about 300 quotes on my site, many say stuff like great cinematography, powerful, haunting, etc., and that many of the disturbing quotes were for movies that were meant to disturb and make you question stuff like violence in cinema, etc.,. She, of course, completely ignores that and on the news just focuses on me having these sleazy horrific quotes. I then tell her that I wanted to portray the captor as the human being he is and not a monster because that makes it all the more frightening. If we see that he is just a person we can identify more with it and see how real this all is. So, she of course turns that around and asks if I’m sympathizing with the guy and feel sorry for him blah, blah, blah -- twists that all up. Then she says on the news, 'Oh no, this guy makes stuff like Amateur Porn Star Killer and Warning!!! Pedophile..., but doesn’t mention just one of my 40 or so films that have titles like Isolation,,Numb, Yesterday, Love Last Captured, The Cleansing etc.,.”

Ryan has now received in his honorary doctorate in Media Exploitation. He's about to get another in How The Media Almost Ruins Careers.

“That airs, twisted up as hell to begin with. Then a major radio show interviews me and I told the producer up front that the story was mixed up, this isn’t about Jaycee, I’m bad with interviews, I’m really shy, I won’t do good at this etc., and he says he’ll tell the host (the biggest asshole in the world who apparently my dad listens to every morning, but I don’t know these things). So, the guy rips me apart and after I explain what I’m trying to do he ends it with something like, 'All right talk to you later you sick pedophile, child raping, homo, punk, pathetic scumbag loser.' (It was way worse than that -- I can’t remember what it was).”

Here is a lesson in irony. These media reporters and pundits are “outraged” by Ryan's supposed exploitation of the Dugard case, but they are exploiting him for their own ratings. Fucking hypocrites.

“After this CNN, Fox, and Joy Behar from The View talk show wanted to interview me. (I should have just taken this and acted like a jackass and got the exposure but I unfortunately thought the world was a better place and people, like this show, actually had some good in them – I had never seen it so obviously not). Anyways, I tell the producer for The View my story, the real story, and she takes a long time to listen to it and hear me out and feels really bad about what happened. But, she admits, after hearing the truth, that the other producers and the show will honestly probably not go for it because with a story like that they can’t bash you like they wanted to. Yeah. So. Yeah. I’m the bad guy in this scenario but they’re the ones who won’t report the truth because the truth will prove I’m not the bad guy. I guess that makes sense. CNN and Fox hadn’t asked me to run the story they said they were running it that night and wanted me on it. I sent them my official statement and after I sent it they never got back to me and the story never ran that night. Or ever.”

That seems okay, right? I mean, if CNN and Fox don't touch it, nobody else will, right? No. Wrong. Very, very wrong.

“There was that one CBS story already out. Now, this is where it got interesting. The Associated Press got a hold of it within hours. They immediately made me out to be “low budget horror filmmaker.” They couldn’t use the word “independent” or “indie,” they had to say “low-budget”. Right off the bat that sounds worse and degrading towards the filmmaker. They also make me out to be a horror filmmaker when I tell them '... Pedophile' isn't horror at all -- watch the trailer. Take two minutes to make your story accurate. Most of my films are not horror and the ones that appear that way (like the APSK’s) aren’t even really horror (aside from true horror). They’re experimental films, dramas, crime movies, examinations of the human mind and behaviour, etc.,. Of, course, for the hundredth time now, nobody acknowledges that and continues bashing me. And they also say it’s about Jaycee, which, again, again, fucking again I say, it’s not.”

Ryan continues with his story. “Now this is were it gets funny. Now it’s not just nationwide, it’s worldwide. The story, inaccurate to begin with, goes from horror filmmaker makes Jaycee movie, to Jaycee movie gets grindhouse treatment, to sleazy Jaycee film being made, to Adult filmmaker makes Jaycee film, to porn producer makes Jaycee film, to porn actor makes Jaycee film and finally to porno guy making Jaycee Dugard porn film. All in a day’s work. Wow. I wonder what the fuck is really happening in Iraq after that fucked up disastrous game of telephone. Bin Laden is probably gay fucking all the army troops and starting rainbow parades and pledging world peace. Who the fuck knows after what I’ve seen the media fuck up, and intentionally fuck up for the most part.”

Probably not the best way to say it, but you can understand Ryan's frustration. Hell, I'd be frustrated. I've interviewed Ryan before for Film Threat. He's a great guy. Super nice, but he doesn't censor himself ... ever really. He says what is on his mind, and I would think it would be easy for a sleazy reporter to get some juicy quotes out of him.

“As soon as I finish the trailer I send out press releases to the Associated Press. No response. I try three more times. No response. Finally, I take two fucking days contacting every single site that put up this story. The only change I see is the San Francisco Chronicle updates their same story, still managing to tweak my press release, and they put it on an already published page from months ago where nobody will ever see it. Yeah. Thanks guys.”

Ryan calms down a bit now, but he does express a belief that the whole Blockbuster/Netflix incident may be tied into this media circus.

“I also think the damage to '...Pedophile Released (about getting rejected from Netflix and Blockbuster and getting a new rejection from DVD Empire, etc.,) was because of this Jaycee thing and the fucking media. Because ... Pedophile came out three weeks after this and it was right after this happened we started getting all the bad news about places not going to carry ... Pedophile who we thought were.”

After all of this, Ryan says he's pretty much had it with the art/media world, and that's a shame. Ryan is an artist first and foremost. Some of the films he makes aren't safe, and they shouldn't be. He has a talent, and he needs to nurture it. Unfortunately, things like these incidents tend to wear a person down. Let that be a lesson to you filmmakers out there. The media is not always your friend, and that adage about any publicity being good publicity is not exactly accurate. Ryan is proof of that. Boy, is he ever.

(As an aside, Ryan provided me with links to much of the story. “Here’s the amusing links of how the story changed:

Original story, you can watch the news that aired online on the right side

http://cbs13.com/local/jaycee.dugard.movie.2.1316928.html

The rest…

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/56284,people,news,filmmaker-defends-plan-to-make-movie-about-jaycee-dugard-case

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/11/19/jaycee-dugard-movie/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/11/18/2009-11-18_jaycee_dugard_and_her_family_calls_horror_filmmakers_plan_to_tell_her_story_expl.html

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/movies/Adult-Filmmaker-Plans-Jaycee-Dugard-Movie-70292497.html

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2009/11/18/dugard_adult_film/print.html

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Dugard-Family-Lashes-Out-Against-Adult-Filmmaker-70383872.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=51842

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/jaycee-dugard-movie-porno_n_361793.html

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-porn-director-plans-completely-tasteless-jaycee-dugard-film/

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/11/jaycee_dugard_case_porn_actor.php

and finally I should rot in hell

http://www.sodahead.com/entertainment/jaycee-dugard-should-porn-producer-rot-in-hell/blog-195121/

Two weeks later Lindsay Lohan (who around the same time released her sleazy sex and drugs party pictures) can announce she wants to make a Jaycee movie because she thinks she looks like Jaycee

http://www.popcrunch.com/lindsay-lohan-jaycee-dugard-movie/

And these two girls completely mock Jaycee, but it goes unnoticed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UH_J7nxmaw

Funny enough the least fucked up story about me appeared in the tabloids, on the front cover of The Globe. http://www.globemagazine.com

And here’s the statement I sent the news when trying to get them to stop spreading the Jaycee Porn rumor, and also what I sent to The View producer (no response after this), CNN and Fox (who didn’t respond after this even though they told me they were doing the story):

I am not making Jaycee Dugard's film/story. I was in pre-production of a human trafficking movie when she was discovered. It spawned new ideas, so, yes, I changed around my original story because I became more interested in exploring the idea of a girl and her captor and nearly two decades of being in captivity and I also liked the idea of it having a happy ending because my films never do. I am not a porn producer, porn actor, porn director, etc. like stated by many news programs. I've used exploitation titles to draw my audience in in order to sell enough copies so I can make more films. Most of my films (about 3/4) do not have exploitation titles but those are never mentioned in the news which proves my point even further that the other titles sell, so what I discovered was that I could have hidden messages in films like Amateur Porn Star Killer, Warning!!! Pedophile Released etc.

I haven't made a dime off of my films for myself and wasn't planning on making money off of Abducted Girl like stated in almost every news release. I'm just a shy, humble, loner who has been struggling to make films since I was 5 years old. Sex scares me in many ways for how evil such a beautiful thing is (it creates life! It should only be good), so I tackle these issues in my films like Abducted Girl. I never thought anybody would hear about this film and am greatly sorry for what Jaycee went through. I only have one sibling, a brother, who was put in a foster home at age one and stayed there until he was 18, so, I do have understanding of what it's like to miss out on childhood, life. I was also put in foster homes, abused greatly in school by other kids with injuries still to this day, ditched months of school out of fear to end up with a 0.8 grade average, had hearing-impaired babysitters and a visually-impaired mother, watched my family nearly get killed and their blood splattered on me and unconscious bodies thrown everywhere due to terrible car accident, etc. I know pain, and I make films about it. The last thing I would want is for Jaycee to think a porn film is being made about her. When describing my film to the few people I thought would hear about it I told them it would be like Jaycee's events so they would know to take it seriously but I didn't think it would be taking literally all across the world. I also felt some connection to her being the same age and having gone through things like being taken away (and at my age it sure felt like being kidnapped). To top it off, my working partner, also my girlfriend, was going to write the film so it would have a woman’s perspective. She was beaten as a child, impregnated at 17 by someone much older, homeless while pregnant and almost killed by beatings while pregnant. Together we made the film, Warning!!! Pedophile Released, which you can see from the trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlkz-NHbTpI

is a very serious film. We were hoping to do the same kind of serious film with Abducted Girl coming from two abused lives.”)

The Sin of Boredom: Philosophy of a Knife

2010-06-20T22:31:00.000-07:00

I sat down to watch Philosophy of a Knife and turned it off two hours into its four hour running time. A movie about the infamous Unit 731 in the Japanese army during the late 1930s to mid 1940s. For those unfamiliar, Unit 731 carried out gruesome experiments on people in attempts to create weapons of mass destruction and develop soldiers who could better withstand the elements.

The film is filled with re-enactments and comes across like an exploitation film done like a documentary. In theory that works. Add to the fact that it is more artistic (love those long, lingering shots of eyes just staring) than exploitive, and you could almost pull of the argument that it is supposed to be art.

Almost.

The greatest sin a film can commit is the sin of being boring. That sums up this film in a nutshell. Boring. How the hell can you make a boring film based on the real events of one of the most notorious military crimes in history? More than 10,000 people were experimented on. Horse blood transfusions given to people. People infected with disease given live vivisections. Teeth forcibly removed from people without the use of numbing agents in order to measure pain. Limbs frozen and then thawed. Stomachs removed and esophagus attached to the intestines.

It practically writes itself if you are making a film that uses gore to get a point across. And this film does go for the gore. You are witness to all kinds of raw things, including the insertion of a rather large insect into the vagina of a woman who is not too pleased. Yes, some of the effects are laughable, but the subject matter (it being factual and all) keeps you from laughing. Everything about it says it should be disturbing. Instead it is just ... pointless.

Perhaps if I sat through another two hours my mood would have been different, but to be honest I doubt I could stay awake. This was a horrible waste of time and energy, and that is made worse knowing that this should have made an impact based upon history alone. Instead, it is an effort in patience to even get through the thing.

Zombie Girl: The Movie

2010-06-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

Zombie Girl: The Movie should be mandatory viewing for any children (particularly female ones) who want to make movies. Its focus is on 12-year-old Emily Hagins and her experience making her low budget zombie film titled Pathogen, and its message is universal when it comes to film making no matter your age. So, yes, if you're over 18 you'll still enjoy this, unlike the Transformers sequel.

Hagins' tenacity is something anyone who is passionate about anything can understand. The fact that she is hell-bent on making a zombie flick before she can drive could be considered cute by some, but those of us who love film can't help but think we may be watching a future star director in action. I haven't seen the final product of her labor, and I doubt it's a perfect or even a genius film, but I can tell that if she sticks with it, she will be making stuff worth watching.

But that's just a small part of this documentary.

If you've ever watched those DVD extras that show how low budget films are made, you will not be surprised by what you see here. There are all the usual problems: not enough money or time; actors not taking things seriously; not getting the right shots; equipment problems and so on. What makes all of this a bit more stressful, however, is that Hagins' mom is directly involved with the film, too, and sometimes exerts a little too much influence over what her daughter is trying to do. Imagine what Duel would have been like had Mama Spielberg been on set barking orders over her son. Yeah, it's not pretty.

If every director had Hagins' drive and desire, we wouldn't be saddled with crap like Valentine's Day. And that's the main reason we should hope she continues to make films. She'll only get better in time, and this documentary will hopefully help her get the exposure she very much needs. Let's pray she stays on the right track.

I Killed a Girl. It Was No Accident (aka Good-Bye, Dennis)

2010-05-31T23:01:00.000-07:00

Dennis Hopper. Dead. We lost a good one.

Hopper starred in his share of shit. That can't be argued. He was brilliant in many films, however, and two of those were Blue Velvet and River's Edge, which also had Crispin Glover in it. (It was also Keanu Reeves' best movie.) Imagine that. Hopper and Glover together in a film that was this mass of kinetic, drug-fueled mania.

Hopper also starred in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, but his role could have been played by anyone. Bill Moseley made that film. Hopper was fun to watch in it, however, as he was in most things he was in. Well, maybe not Super Mario Bros., where he played King Koopa. A career low point for any actor, I'm sure. You can't ignore that ... as much as you want to. He made some questionable choices. But the ones that weren't such a stretch of intelligence were almost sublime.

Blue Velvet is one of David Lynch's best films, and a great deal of its success is due to Hopper. The strange gas he inhales. The insane screams. Screwing Isabell Rossellini with scissors while saying, "Baby wants to fuck." Inspired. Show me a better film about small town life in America. I dare you.

Hopper died the same week Gary Coleman, who lived in a locker in On the Right Track. They don't really compare, but it seems somewhat disrespectful that Coleman would go the same week ... even if he did go first. When you lose a legend, you just let anyone else go the same week. It would be like that guy from Creed dying three days before Dio. It just isn't right.

I wouldn't consider Hopper to be a legend, but he was close. He was a work horse, as is witnessed by the amazing amount of stuff he's been in. He was at his best when playing the madman. He did not stretch himself all that much, but he delivered when he was in the right role, and that's better than 70% of the actors out there now.

My three favorite Hopper films, River's Edge, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Blue Velvet all came out in 1986. It was a good year for film. I end this with a quote from River's Edge, where Hopper plays Feck, an insane guy who lives with a love doll, if memory serves me correctly. "I killed a girl, it was no accident. Put a gun to the back of her head and blew her brains right out the front. I was in love."

That's a great quote. Fits just about any situation.

Good-bye, Dennis.

The Iron Man 2 Problem

2010-05-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

I saw the first Iron Man and liked it. I like the character (always have) and thought Robert Downey, Jr. did a fine job bringing it to life. The movie had some dumb Hollywood moments, but it was a Hollywood movie so that was to be expected. When I started seeing trailers for the sequel, I made plans to see it opening weekend or the weekend after if I didn't feel like dealing with the crowds.

Somewhere along the line that changed, and it had nothing to do with the movie or crowds. It had everything to do with me.

I went from wanting to see the sequel to being totally ambivalent about it. I didn't even really think about the reason why until someone asked me if I were going to see it. After some soul searching, I think I figured it out.

It's all about my mood.

Right now I'm over stressed to the point where headaches are a daily event and sleep is some elusive pipe dream. I am in a foul head space, and I have no desire to see something that is just pure entertainment (though I think I could benefit from it). I realized all of this when Mario Bava's La Maschera del Demonio arrived in the mail and I was absolutely giddy at the prospect of sitting in the dark and taking that classic in.

I don't want happy right now. I want something that reflects my state of mind, and a Marvel superhero ain't it (no matter how much I like him).

Maybe my emotional state will change in a day or two and I'll find myself in line, ready to enjoy the movie up until it's final act, as is usually the case with superhero movies. Maybe I'll just wait for the DVD, like I did with the first one. Maybe I'll never see it and just watch my usual suspects of emotional grind on steady repeat.

If you go, I hope you enjoy it. Me? I'll be watching a spiked metal mask be hammered into Barbara Steele's face and feeling every minute of it ... and that smile won't be wiped off my face.

It's Only a Movie

2010-05-04T06:44:00.000-07:00

When remakes first started to be the thing for Hollywood to do instead of finding original stories, I figured there were a handful of films that Hollywood would never dream of touching. Cannibal Holocaust and The Last House on the Left were two of those.

Obviously I was wrong on the latter.

I haven't seen the remake of the Wes Craven classic, as I'm not a fan of remakes or even the original film in this case, but from what I hear from people who have seen both is that the remake is disturbing but nowhere near as bad as the original. So what is the fucking point?

The Last House on the Left is, for better or worse, considered a hallmark of cinema nastiness. Why would anyone attempt to remake it if they couldn't top it? It's not supposed to be a pleasant film, so why not go for broke?

I know the real reason remakes are made is to quite simply cash in on the original film's name and history. That can work with something like Halloween. With Craven's rape/revenge film, however, it doesn't seem like a name and history you'd want to cash in on unless you were going to make it better. After all, the original film's fans are smart enough to know that Hollywood is not going to make a movie like the original just out of fear of the reaction it would produce, so those fans are lost. New viewers, who watch anything that comes out, will go simply because it's new, so why not try a new film all together that is in the vein of the original (with a different title) and try to rope in both crowds?

The way I see it, the only extra audience that the remake could have received is the crowd that has knowledge of the original film but never saw it because they were frightened of it, but now they know that Hollywood would never put out a film that actually challenges viewers. Therefore, they feel safe going to see the new film. They won't be challenged, they won't see anything that sticks with them for years, they won't leave the theatre shaking.

Perhaps someday we'll see films go back to that wild, free-for-all of the period from the late '60s to early '80s, but I doubt it. The film, art, economic and cultural climate has changed so much that those days seem beyond reach. Hollywood should remember that and stop trying to embrace that era without any of the trappings that made it so great. Not only is that cowardly, but it's a total waste of time on everyone's part.

And if Cannibal Holocaust gets remade with Nic Cage I just may shoot someone.

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

2010-04-25T17:27:00.000-07:00

As a child, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane freaked me out. It stars a young Jodie Foster (who considers it one of her worst films -- it's not as she has done far crappier stuff than this) and Martin Sheen as a pedophile. Foster is hiding a secret and bumping people off with poison. Sheen is trying to get into her pants. He's creepy. She's creepy. The entire movie gave me chills. (It came out in 1977 in America and I probably saw it a year or two later, so I was about nine when I first watched it.)

While hardly a classic, this Canadian film still delivers, though I am far less disturbed by it these days. Since it was the 1970s, it's not surprising this film was made (and I could actually see it being remade now, though not well), it still seems like an anomaly of cinema. Maybe it's because of Sheen, or a brief nude scene with Foster (well, really Foster's older sister in real life because Foster didn't want to appear nude in the movie), but watching the film always gives me the feeling that something is a little ... off.

Those expecting a full-on horror movie will be disappointed. This is more of a psychological thriller (despite how it was marketed when it came out), and I will say that the subject matter makes it quite effective as such. And despite Foster's misgivings about the film, I think that any kind of serious study of her career will find this to be one of her more compelling works.

At the very least it is world's better than Nell or Maverick.

The Apprentice (aka Mismarketing Erotica)

2010-04-12T20:10:00.000-07:00

The Apprentice, also known as Fleur Bleue, was released last year in a special edition. It was sent to me to review or Film Threat, though I'm still up in the air on whether or not I will submit it. While the film looks good and is interesting, what I find odd is how it is promoted.

If you ever wanted to see a young Susan Sarandon's breasts, then you would think this is the be-all-end-all of such sightings. In fact, if you simply read the back of the DVD box for this 1971 film, you would think this is some kind of erotic vehicle for Sarandon. It has sex, it has Sarandon, but it is really about so much more.

I'm not reviewing the movie here regardless of whether or not I submit it to Film Threat, but I am complaining about Somerville House's willingness to focus on one aspect of the film in order to sell it. Especially since it's Sarandon, who has never been the most erotic of actresses. In fact, I would say her fans would be much more inclined to buy this film if a more fitting description were placed on the DVD box along with the fact that is one of Sarandon's first roles. The press kit that came with the film did a fairly decent (though not spectacular) job of describing the film's place in cinematic history, so why not the stuff the consumer gets to see? (Honestly, the film's actual story is far better than the implied one, but I'm also a fan of crime films and ones that look at the sociological aspects of clashing ethnic groups -- the French and the English in Canada in this case).

Sarandon is an interesting actor in her own right. I'm not a huge fan, but I know quite a few people who are, and they would not be sold on this movie as an "erotic" Sarandon film. They don't think of her as an erotic star, period. For many of them, Thelma and Louise is pushing it.

I understand that companies have to sell movies, but promoting a film as an erotic Susan Sarandon piece is like promoting a film for being an erotic James Gandolfini movie. Granted, I'm sure a lot of women find him sexy, but most people want to see him play a tough guy. They don't care about seeing his ass. It just makes me wonder: Who the hell was Somerville marketing this movie to? Young guys? They don't want to see Sarandon naked? Sarandon's fans? Ditto. Older women? Nope. So who?

And maybe now we know why the special edition of this film was meant with little fanfare.

Throne of Blood

2010-03-09T22:35:00.000-08:00

Every country has one director who, according to cinemaphiles, is the best representation of the region's film making. Italy has Dario Argento, and Japan has Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa's films, much like Argento's, have inspired directors all over the world, and one of his best films is Throne of Blood, the English title of Kumonosu-jō, the translation of which is actually Spider Web Castle.

Throne of Blood, like many of the films Kurosawa is known for, is a samurai film. It's not your ordinary samurai film, however. No, this one is based on Macbeth. If you're wondering how well Shakespeare's work can translate when the characters are thrown into feudal Japan, I can tell you.

Damn good.

If you've seen Throne of Blood it is doubtful you'll ever forget its images. The fog. Those eerily moving trees. The ghost. One scene that has always stuck in my mind was the death of Washizu (Toshiro Mifune), which is the Macbeth role. Washizu is killed by his own archers in a scene that had me wondering just how it was pulled off. To me, it looked like those were real arrows being shot at him and sticking into the walls next to his terrified body. But, of course, this was movie making, and while the special effects weren't spectacular in 1957, I knew they could be used to create a scene where it looks like real arrows are being shot at an actor.

Except in this scene it was real arrows being shot at an actor. The look of fright on Mifune's face? Real. Brilliant. Can you imagine how you would feel if your director told you, "Oh yeah, we're shooting real arrows at you. Action!"

To quote Sid Haig as Captain Spaulding, "Shit the bed!"

I'm not a fan of Shakespeare, but I do like Macbeth. I like this film even more, though. In my opinion, it actually works better than Shakespeare's work. It's moodier, the language works better, and it is, quite honestly, more interesting. I find Shakespeare's work to be overrated, despite the oft cited cultural significance. Much like The Beatles, people think they should like Shakespeare, so they say they do.

Kurosawa was a master. This, like Seven Samurai and Ran, was one of his masterpieces. Fifty years from now this film and its director will still be inspiring filmmakers whether directly or indirectly (like those who get their inspiration from George Lucas, who was heavily influenced by Kurosawa). There are only a handful of directors who can claim that, and Throne of Blood shows why Kurosawa is one of them.

Ils

2010-03-05T22:38:00.000-08:00

If you are interested in my review of Ils, you can click on the link below.Check out my recently published content on AC:

Ils: A Vision in Terror

Now That's a Knife

2010-02-13T23:05:00.000-08:00

Wolf Creek.I like movies that toy with you. You know, the ones that get under your skin and string you along. The payoff has to be worthy of that tease, though, or else I get really pissed off. Wolf Creek was one of those films. It wasn't nearly as good or suspenseful as Haute Tension, but it got the job done. It spent about forty-five minutes establishing the characters, which many consider to be the kiss of death in films like this.

And then the terror started.

I've always liked movies where the protagonists aren't smarter or more resourceful than the antagonist, and they don't get away. I like that because it's closer to real life. It gives the film a sense of despair and dread.

When a bunch of dumb-ass teenagers can take down Jason Voorhees, how scary can he be?

In Wolf Creek it is the little touches that make the film. The footage found on a video camera the killer has in his trophy room, what he has hanging in his barn, the way the killer talks about his old job -- all those things not only add an air of realism, they work to make the film more effective for the astute viewer. It's obvious that some care went into making the film.

The fate of the characters is in the air the entire time in Wolf Creek. You can't honestly say you know who will live and who will die, and that sense of uncertainty is brought about by the way the film effectively toys with its audience. There are far too many films that you go into and ten minutes later know exactly how it will end. When a film can keep you on your toes, well, you need to respect that

There's no greater cinema crime than a boring, predictable film. It insults viewers (who seem to enjoy boring, predictable films in huge number) and wastes their time. It also says that the filmmakers don't have enough confidence in their skill. They would rather go for the tried and true than take a risk.

I'll take the risk takers any day. Because even when they fail they do it on their own terms in (often) wild, unpredictable ways. Everything else is just painting by the numbers

Miramax Is Done

2010-01-30T08:02:00.000-08:00

Kevin Smith put it best when he said he was "crushed" to see Miramax "pass into history." The studio gave Smith his start with Clerks and gave audiences tired of Forrest Gump and alternative in the form of a Royale with Cheese.. Now Disney has closed its offices, consolidated it and stated it wasn't closing it down entirely.

Sure sounds like it, though.

Miramax, for better or for worse, will forever be known as the company that brought independent films to a mainstream audience. That covers the good and bad, but the end result was really a positive one. It gave people who were tired of blockbuster nonsense a reason to leave their houses and actually go to the cinema, and for that I will miss it.

I didn't love everything that came out with its logo, but I understood and respected the spirit of the mission ... most of the time. Miramax had its faults (which multiplied when it started getting involved in that blockbuster nonsense I mentioned before), but you can't ignore what it did for American cinema.

Is it gone? It's gone enough. But its legacy will live on.

Film Threat Sold!

2010-01-28T20:44:00.000-08:00

Film Threat has been sold by Chris Gore to former editor Mark Bell. If asked, I shall return because it is sans Gore! Woo-hoo!

What Ever Happened to Film Threat?

2010-01-17T13:33:00.000-08:00

If you've tried to access the site you may have noticed it's not working and hasn't been for months. I've written for the site for years, and I've had my ups and downs with it and its head honcho Chris Gore, but I'm done ... even if the site comes back up.

Gore used to be a total cheerleader for independent cinema, though he wasn't afraid to call it out (along with mainstream Hollywood), but as of the past few years it seems that independent cinema has taken a backseat to major studio releases, porn stars and G4. The website still did its best to promote independent cinema, but Gore seemed like he didn't care.

(I have some personal issues with him, too, and how he went back on his word on something, but that's not the scope of this post -- though it started swaying my opinion of him quite a bit.)

I remember first realizing that Gore was no longer one of the spokespeople for indie cinema when he went on G4 and gushed about how great it was that Iron Man was now out on DVD, but made no mention of any of the indie films out that same day, including the second Amateur Porn Star Killer film, which Film Threat helped put on the map (through my interviews and reviews). This controversial film series rated not even a mention by Gore, and I found that sad. Not to say he had to, but it was important for indie cinema since the first two films broke records as being the most inexpensive films to make that ever saw national distribution.

Film Threat helped the careers of many filmmakers and was the only site that reviewed a lot of these movies. Wall Street Journal even called it one of the top five movie sites in the country. Just on my end I helped bring attention to the Amateur Porn Star Killer series, Hacks, and Failure, just to name a few. Now the site is down with no word of when or if it will ever go back up. It actually seems unlikely it ever will return at this point.

What that means is all those reviews, all those interviews, and all those columns (I did "Excess Hollywood") are now lost unless other people posted them elsewhere. The links are all dead, which reall screws up my other blog, Published and Unpublished Works. Film history has been lost, and I don't think Gore cares. He is more interested in making petty jokes with Olivia Munn and getting his picture taken with Sasha Gray. Nothing wrong with either thing, but sell-outs don't get a lot of respect from me, and I think he has become the very definition of the word.

Eventually people will tire of him and he will return to Film Threat, most likely with big promises (like he made to me). I won't be on board this time, though. If some of the people associated with the site break out and do something on their own, I'd be happy to contribute, but if Gore is at the helm I'll just do my own thing.

As of now I have a box of movies I've been waiting to review for when the site came back online. The reviews will run here and any other place that wants them.

What ever happened to Film Threat? I don't know for sure, but I think it has a lot to do with one person's fascination with themselves all while losing sight of the bigger picture.

A Slasher Classic Gets the Anniversary Treatment

2010-01-04T16:37:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to a news item I did on the upcoming 25th anniversary edition of The House on Sorority Row. Enjoy.

Slasher Fans Rejoice! House on Sorority Row 25th Anniversary Edition DVD to Be Released