Film Threat Sold!

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?

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 The links are all dead, which reall screws up my other blog, Published and Unpublished Works.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.

Gone Missing

Some of you have e-mailed me wondering why my reviews haven't appeared on Film Threat for some time (since 6/09 to be exact). Here's the answer.

Yes, I am still writing for Film Threat. There has been a change of guard there, and things got lost in the shuffle, including a lot of my reviews. I have been given the power (which I may have always had but never knew) to post them myself. So yesterday I tried it, figuring I'd just post everything I've sent.

It didn't work.

I don't know why it wouldn't work. It just didn't. I imagine the problem is being looked at now, but I don't know when or if it will be fixed, and if I have to send in the reviews again, I can see the same thing happening.

Frustrating, yes, but that is the way of the world.

At least your questions are answered now. I'll keep you all posted.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, as many of you know, was only screened for a handful of critics who could be relied upon by the studio to give a good review. As a film critic, I want to thank the studio for sparing many of my peers from having to watch what can only be considered dreck based simply on the trailer. This film is the reason I don't review mainstream cinema.

Back when I first started writing for Film Threat I was asked if I would be interested in reviewing the big studio pictures. I declined for several reasons, all of which continue to be true. The first reason was that I don't like many mainstream films. They do what they do fine (for the most part), but to quote Suicidal Tendencies, I want more. The second reason, and this is even more important, is that these films get enough press as it is, and if I'm reviewing something like G.I. Joe, I'm not reviewing The Dysfunctional Book Club (a film I just reviewed). My review of Iron Man ain't gonna matter one bit, but I may actually be able to get something like Hacks new viewers. (Which, by the way, is exactly what I did.)

Back to the Joes. When a studio doesn't screen a film for critics it should be a red flag to viewers (many of whom will see it anyway). This flag screams, "We have no confidence in this film!" That should tell potential viewers everything right there. If the studio has no confidence in a film, why should you spend your money on it? The answer is: You shouldn't. When a studio does such a thing I just wants to get the biggest opening weekend possible, without any negative reviews, and then hope the picture recoups money overseas and on DVD. It's a ploy that has too many variables to actually determine a success rate, but it is worth noting as to why it is used.

Many people, some of them my friends, will see this film regardless of the studio's confidence level in it. They'll complain it was crap, and I'll toss off a snide remark or two. Worse, they may be apologists for it saying the usual things. "The story sucked, but the effects were awesome." You know those lines. You've heard them before and may have even said them.

It's the Joes. People are going to see it. I just think it's ridiculous so many people are so eager to prove they are suckers.

How Do You Do This?

A friend asked me to recommend a film this weekend. I told her I really liked The Devil's Rejects, but warned her it could be disturbing. (Turns out I did not have to worry about that as she sent me one of the most out-of-left-field texts I have ever received, and if I wonder if I should be the one disturbed.) She then asked for other recommendations, and I mentioned the film pictured here, Cannibal Holocaust.

I gave the usual warnings. Sexual violence. Real animal cruelty. I figured it was a safe recommendation after the text I got, but you never know. It seems like, however, whenever someone asks for my recommendations I have to throw in a caveat. When I write my reviews for Film Threat I often have to do the same thing. It comes from a time I just would recommend a film and then have someone flip out on me.

How do you recommend something like Cannibal Holocaust without seeming like a total maniac? I'm not sure you can ... at least not with most people.

The friend I recommended it to said she may work her way up to that one and asked if I had anything in between the two films. (She has since watched The Devil's Rejects again and liked it even more the second time. Should I be worried?)

I recommended I Stand Alone to a few friends. Most of them thought my warnings weren't stern enough, though they all agreed it was a good film. (It's actually a great film that ranks up there as one of the best of all time.) It seems like its a no-win situation. Hell, I've lost friends over film recommendations (Amateur Porn Star Killer comes to mind).
So how do you remedy that?

You don't.

I learned the hard way that no matter what you say about a film, no matter what warnings you give, the end reaction is on the shoulders of each individual viewer. As a critic and friend, you can only tell people what's in the movie, why you like it, and why they might like it. You'll either come off as a prick or a breath of fresh air. My experience, though, shows that you'll usually be the prick. But it all becomes worth it when you get a text like the one I received. You make someone's day and turn them onto a film you love. It doesn't get much better than that.

An Explanation

The picture in my blog title is from "Irreversible," a film by one of my favorite directors, Gaspar Noe (I can't make that little accent mark over the "e" in his last name). It's a brutal, brilliant film that shows exactly what good cinema is capable of. It's not easy to watch (like his other equally incredible film "I Stand Alone"), but it is important. It's everything I actually love about movies. Cinematography that draws you in and puts you on edge. A soundtrack that upsets your stomach (done on purpose). A story that holds no punches. You watch it and you realize anything can happen at any time and you are not safe.

That's what I love in a film.

I started this blog as a way to continue what I originally started with my old weekly column, "Excess Hollywood" on Film Threat. I no longer do the column, but still review films there and do the occasional interview. I've been involved in film journalism over ten years now. I've seen a lot. Little of it good. This blog is going to cover film, and yes it is a love letter to cinema, as I believe film, even more than my first love (books) can reach people the way no other artform can.

Sit back and enjoy, but like "Irreversible," it won't always be pleasant.