So...remember that article I promised last time? The one where I finally put down my $0.02 on a particular element of film and nerddom that's been getting reevaluated all around?
Well, technically, I'm a liar. I say technically for two reasons
1) I do still plan to deliver on that, but frankly, this piece called to me to get finished first.
and
2) This technically also meets that description, just not as the subject I had in mind.
So what was the topic that pre-empted this entry that is mutating into a two-article topic on its own? Why none other than that wonderful mess of industry politics, questionable decisions, and the occasional good call that is the Academy Awards.
Now, before I begin, I want to say something I've been noticing over the last few months that, honestly, I find pretty encouraging in a weird way.
In light of the recent controversies over copyright and control of the web that have been raging over the internet over the past few months (and I imagine many of you are sick to death of hearing about), I did note one thing that hadn't fully sunk in before that, the more I think about it, is actually rather exciting. The fact is, while the entertainment industry at large seems to be solely opposed to the fact this technology can be used to distribute their goods without them getting payment, there is another area where one can't shake the feeling they're also feeling threatened - in this new age of distribution and greater access to technology, the floodgates for distribution of film have widened.
We're on the verge of an age where being able to make and distribute a film without having to rely on major studio backing is becoming less dream and more reality again.
A prospect that some have speculated leaves the current industry another step closer to being rendered obsolete by the times, a problem they've been wrestling with as it is through their stubborn attempts to block rather than embrace new technology.
'What the Hell does any of this have to do with the Oscars?' some of you are probably asking right about now. Directly, nothing. Indirectly though, it addresses the same question of 'are you relevant anymore?' that has been slowly growing over the industry these last few months.
It's hard to deny that, in light of this year's nominee announcements, reactions were altogether mixed. Almost immediately, lists of numerous films that people thought were snubbed, if not outright shut out, began cropping up on the web. Now, some response of "* was robbed" is to be expected to a degree with nominees in general cause...hey, it's an awards show, not everyone's going to have the same opinions. This year's response, however, seemed much more pronounced than usual, with the absence of several features (some of which I will go into later) called into question and, in turn, people questioning the appearance on the lists of others (most notably, Stephen Daldry's 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close', one of the only Best Picture nominees in general, and of this year's crop, the only one, to actually garner a 'rotten' score on metacritic site RottenTomatoes.)
In light of all of this, more and more people now seem to be asking that inevitable, uncomfortable question - why do we even care about this show? Sure, it's got some nice surprises at times, and some people may enjoy seeing the hardworking members of the industry (and I want to stress that, when I take issue with the industry at large, it's more with studio heads than it is the people actually making the films) all gathered together and decked to the nines for one night that will, inevitably, exceed its given time slot on the networks with almost as much certainty as a Superbowl game.
But as a former benchmark of film quality, is it really relevant anymore?
I mean, how many people here now look and go "This won best picture? That's gotta be good then!" Or how many people feel the need to go to a film on the basis of "Oscar-winning actor *" being in it?
I don't know about you guys, but from the people I've talked to, it just doesn't matter that much anymore. Hell, to some degree, one has to wonder how much it even mattered to begin with, if the numerous lists of bad calls made by the Oscars over the years that crop up like clockwork with each awards season are any indication (fun fact - one of the most acclaimed films of American cinema was beaten in its year for Best Picture. I'm sure some of you already know which one.)
On some level, it seems like the Academy is also aware of its diminishing relevance (how can they not be? It's been acknowledged ratings have been low the past few years, and this year's article revealing the majority of the Academy voter base to be white men over 50 (*) have made it hard for them to ignore it.) To their credit, they have also tried to fix this problem, either by increasing the openings for Best Picture nominee a few years ago from 5 to 9, and actually, for the first time in years, making an effort to try and broaden their horizons, albeit in one of the 'safer' categories. Don't get me wrong guys, I love that you're finally opening 'Best Animated' up to foreign entries besides Studio Ghibli again (and I want to make this clear, this is NOT a knock on Ghibli. Just saying, in the past, this seemed to be as far out of their comfort zone as the Academy was willing to go, which lead to some other greats being sadly shafted) but the fact it took this long to do so disappoints me.
Unfortunately, many of these efforts feel like they're coming too little, too late. Plus the sheer number of things people pointed out as having been ignored by the Academy this year, arguably more so than most other years, seems to suggest the awards are now, without dispute, falling out of faith with the general movie going public.
Now, this isn't to say all of their choices this year are bad. In fact, they have selected several good films this year. The problem is, the number of other equally, or in some cases better movies that got little to no acknowledgment doesn't reflect well on their criteria in general.
...and since I've discussed it several times now, I suppose it's only fitting to round out this article by throwing my $0.02 in on several of the titles that were ignored this year.
Now, given the somewhat long nature of this list, and the fact you guys have already been subjected to enough ramblings, we're gonna try and keep this one moving at a brisk pace (cause as a general rule, we'll all be wondering "How much longer do they plan to go?" tomorrow night.)
Don't be surprised if some, or all of these, you've seen on other lists so far...cause they really do deserve better than they're currently getting:
-Melancholia
Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director (oh come on, say what you will about his comments, and let's face it, those are why he's not on here, von Trier IS a good director)
-Cinematography
-Actress (take your pick, they both stepped up for this one.)
-Supporting actor
In short - were it not for the fact that von Trier's made himself a fair number of enemies with his off-the-cuff comments, this would have been a contender to beat this year. Of course, even if it weren't for von Trier's penchant for PR magic, I can't shake the feeling some of the subject matter of this film also probably cost it some Academy brownie points. I don't just mean the ending (which I can't rightly say I'm spoiling since you know the Earth is doomed within the first five minutes), but the film's rather frank look at depression. This is also where I'd say the acting nominations would pay off. Just as the film doesn't try to sugarcoat Dunst's character's depression, the performances by both her as well as Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kiefer Sutherland trying to help support her, alongside coping with the entire 'Earth is doomed' plotline. But the latter is still a secondary story to that depression element, which the film depicts in showing as sympathetic but not saintly. There are times where we can relate to Gainsbourg and Sutherland's frustration, but at the same time, we know it's not really something that Dunst is consciously doing. In short, it's an honest look at a mental illness.
-Take Shelter
Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Actor
-Actress
-Original Screenplay
-Cinematography
In short - Alongside Melancholia, oh WOW did this film get the proverbial short end of the stick. Again, I wonder how much of this was exposure and how much was the fact that the subject matter wasn't necessarily voter friendly (I mean, mental illness isn't new ground for the Academy in films, but as it's depicted here...well...there's a reason the 'Never go full retard' scene in the movie Tropic Thunder exists. In this film it's not retardation, but the principle remains the same.) Between the film's rather straightforward look at a tricky subject, as well as how it plays in ambiguity to the very end as far as whether Michael Shannon's character's visions are real or not, it's already walking a tenuous road. Despite this, the film carries itself quite well, and in particular leads Shannon and Jessica Chastain both deliver some phenomenal work with roles that could have easily been overdone. It took an interesting approach at a subject that, for some, is still rather uncomfortable...and I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of what cost it recognition.
...of course, again, it could just be the exposure issue.
-Martha Marcy May Marlene
Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Actress
-Original Screenplay
In short - OK, the fact this got NOTHING is still mind-boggling. Especially in light of some of the other entries that got in this year. This is what people are talking about when they say you guys are losing touch, Academy. Again, maybe this was an exposure issue. Maybe it's the fact this movie came before the big awards season (and yes, the fact is when over the year a movie comes out DOES effect its odds with the Academy.) Or maybe, and I apologize for the fact I'm coming back to this, maybe this is another case where the concept wasn't exactly warming up to voters. I mean, like the previous two, we're looking at a film which addresses mental disorders with a rather straight face. The victims aren't lionized, nor are they shunned. We simply see what this condition does to them and those around them (in this case thanks in a large part to a sadly overlooked performance by Elisabeth Olsen.) Knowing what Martha has been through during her time in a commune-like cult, we do feel bad for her, but at the same time, we can see why her sister and her fiance are frustrated with her at points throughout the movie. Alongside that, the film's avoiding trying to completely side with either part of the issue, tied with an ambiguity in the script (to such a degree that the viewer is left wondering what is real and what is paranoid delusion) may have also cost this any chances at the big win. I do want to believe I'm just seeing the worst in these situations, but the more I look at the spread that got in next to the stuff that didn't...it DOES raise suspicions.
-We Need to Talk About Kevin
Possible nominations:
-Director
-Actress
-Adapted Screenplay
In short - I'm sensing a pattern here now. It seems like the more 'downer' films from the year are getting pretty roundly shut out here. Now, this could just be coincidence. I could be reading this wrong. But when, as several people have noticed, the films that deal with more uncomfortable subject matters are getting shut out, while a film like EL&IC, amid a LOT of mixed reception, made it all the way up to best picture, it DOES raise suspicions that maybe these films aren't being left out on matters of quality, but simply because the voters aren't liking what they have to say.
-Drive
Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Supporting Actor
-Film Editing
In short - Of all of these nomination suggestions, if I had to bat for anyone, I'd join the voices in saying Albert Brooks got shafted from a best supporting actor nomination. Of course, this isn't to say he was alone here. For his own role, Bryan Cranston's turn in this was also worth some acknowledgment. Especially in a year where the Academy has shown they're willing to offer up two nominees from the same film in the same category. Granted, if forced to pick between the two (begrudgingly so,) I'd side with Brooks. In either case, the fact this film only got a nomination for Sound Editing leaves one feeling like this movie, like the others above, should have gotten some more acknowledgment than it did.
-The Adventures of Tintin
Possible nominations:
-Animated Feature
-Adapted Screenplay
In short - OK, I'm still really disappointed this one didn't get a shot. I mean, again, on the one hand, I love the fact we're getting more foreign feature coverage this year in the animated category. On the other, I do still find the fact this lost a slot to the three entries from the US we did get seems rather underwhelming. I've heard some speculation that it was loopholed out due to the fact a lot of it was motion capture. If that's true, I'm going to have to express my disappointment, since that feels like taking an easy out to keep this one from a nomination. As animated features went this year, it was definitely one of the fresher entries this year and, coming from someone who had misgivings about this, more than did the source material justice while still being generally entertaining.
-Meek's Cutoff
Possible nominations:
-Director
-Actress
-Cinematography
In short - I'm not sure if this was just the fact it came out too early with little fanfare and exposure or if voters just weren't that crazy about it's approach. I stress the part on lack of exposure...this was one of those full on 'find the nearest arthouse theater, cause if you think this is going to appear in your usual theater, you've either been very lucky or drinking.' It's a damned shame in either case. In an industry that takes a lot of flak these days for reheating old stories and general unoriginality, this film took what, in other hands, could have been a very cliched story and managed to put it in a new spin that actually leaves one remembering the execution almost more than the plot itself. Further to this end, given the film's 'in media res'/'slice of life' approach to its story, it makes the acting (in particular, lead Michelle Williams) even more of a challenge as they don't have the ability to make the full traditional story arc.
-Hanna
Possible nominations:
-Original score
In short - OK, this one I won't say too much on compared to the others. But the work The Chemical Brothers did for the soundtrack, as a nice change from the traditional soundtrack, would have been nice to see make the list (one thing I will give the Academy on this note - giving last year's Original Score to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross was one of their better calls.)
...so yeah, there's been a lot of questions about this year. I won't say I'm entirely displeased with what we did get, as there have been some good picks in the running as well. Unfortunately, it does make it hard to lend credence to the award as a mark of quality when you see this many good entries getting left at the wayside simply because they either came out at the wrong time, or weren't backed by the right people.
In any event, will be interesting to see how it all pools out tomorrow.
...and yes, next week I WILL make good on that other post was talking about.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
That One Holiday Card That Arrives The Better Part of a Week Too Late and Is Addressed to the Wrong Person.
Look well, for this is the face ofthe threat to the sanctity of marriage in this country
(...allegedly. I just see an angry ex-child star.)
On a slightly more informal schedule, we return to the Third Row, once again just a little behind a holiday, though hopefully not without a warped sense of how to celebrate it.
After how (relatively) well the Halloween entries went last year (read: they actually got done) I contemplated trying to do reviews for other festive occasions. While Christmas didn't happen this time (though several great targets are lined up for the future) that marked Valentine's Day as the next most likely to try and find something to review.
...now, with an event like this one, known by many for its crass commercialization, its overemphasis on the importance of relationships, and the fact it tends to just be a really shit day of the year when you're single, the very nature of this Hallmark holiday lent itself to a lot of REALLY horrible ways I could take this. Bad stalker films. Downright disturbed relationships. Or just go straight for the 'insane exes' style of film making.
...in what some would consider a twist of perverse holiday kismet, and others just some really bizarre timing, the answer came to me actually from an unexpected source...and appropriately enough, while with my girlfriend.
To try and bring this preamble to a close in a nutshell...the both of us are, to differing degrees, cinematic masochists. While we enjoy as great classic from time to time, there's just something to be said for the cinematic equivalent of a flaming train wreck sometimes to really take the edge off a day. It was with this mindset we found a winner.
Without further ado, I submit to you probably one of the most uncomfortable romantic movies I have ever watched - Kirk Cameron's 'Fireproof.'
Now, in starting this I will admit, as far as romance goes, my taste in film isn't exactly the most synced up. If asked to pick my favorite, I can't help but feel I'd opt for Woody Allen's 'Annie Hall' (yeah, the movie is about the couple post-breakup, but in the flashbacks, you really can see what these two see in each other. Plus, even the breakup phase is pretty damn accessible.) So I'll admit, I went into this expecting some schmaltz and with lowered expectations.
...what I got was a film that, the more I think about it, the more I find it to be rather disheartening.
The story itself is part of where the initial problem lies. Cameron plays the main character, Caleb, a firefighter whose marriage is on the rocks... ...to put it lightly. Right out of the gate, these two are at each other's throats. I mean there is some serious venom in this (...or at least as much venom as you're going to get in a film with Cameron as your mainliner. In this case, the most withering putdown he can think to apply to his wife is by calling her a woman. Which feels rather anticlimactic since the buildup to the line leads you to believe he's about to drop a bomb he'll REALLY regret as a sign their marriage needs some SERIOUS help.)
Even the causes of their arguments come across as, honestly, pretty petty. OK, I could understand being upset that, presumably, your husband's looking at cyberporn (the movie tries to address this in a rather tame fashion that mostly just makes it look like Cameron will be enticed by ANYTHING) but the rest of the argument just smacks of two people looking for reasons to rip into each other.
So, right out of the gate, we have quite possibly one of the most loveless couples I've seen in film in a LONG time.
In their own separate social spheres, the two get advice from their own relative circle of friends and family. I'm under the impression that creators of this film don't seem to get out of their own social bubble that much, as many of them don't sound or feel that much like real people, so much as what the writers believe these people sound like. Unfortunately, they sound like archetypes, at best, stereotypes at worst. Most of it's pretty benign at least...though I can't help but feel there's something unintentionally offensive about how the wife's black friends are depicted. Anyway, HERE is where the movie starts getting uncomfortable for me.
With the exception of a couple of the friends who suggest divorce (I DO commend this movie that, despite its obvious ideological overtones, it refrained from vilifying divorce) their friends are all pulling for them. Now, you may be wondering why I would be opposed to that. It's simple - their sole reason comes down to 'God wouldn't like it.' Next to nothing is said for whether or not they were a good couple before, it's either citing the Bible or "relationships take work."
Eventually, at the behest of Caleb's father, a devout Christian, he takes up a 40 day program to 'fireproof' his marriage (it's worth noting the DVD also includes a version of this program for people to use in their own homes...kind of gives you the sense the program was made first with the movie crafted around it...a feeling the film itself just adds THAT much more ground to.) Caleb is understandably dubious, but agrees to give it a shot. You can guess where this is going from here...in the end, Caleb overcomes his demons, restores his marriage, and finds God.
Happy ending, right?
Maybe if we actually cared. Which is probably the biggest problem of the film.
Do I agree that relationships take work? Yes.
The problem here is, the work still needs to have some sort of a foundation to build on. Over the course of the movie, we never really get a sense of what brings this couple together. Much less why they've stayed together (they can't even fall back on the old 'they have a kid and they don't want to put him/her through that' logic.) Not to mention their own interactions feel, altogether, platonic, even when their marriage is supposedly getting saved.
In another set of hands, I can't help but feel this could have been an interesting, if somewhat depressing drama - two people who let themselves get into a marriage born more out of religious convictions than genuine affection and then find, though they don't actually love each other, their beliefs keep either from simply walking away.
...granted, even in its current form, the film still feels that way, albeit likely not by design. Just, at the end, the couple seem to have fooled themselves into believing they've fixed their relationship (this is largely a result of Caleb being less of a jerk and doing an exceedingly selfless act for his wife, Catherine's, mother.)
Does this make him a nice guy? Certainly. The problem is, we still don't get a sense of what these two see in each other. I mean, by the end of the film I could at least see them staying friends after the divorce, but there's not really any sense that their marriage is worth much of anything based on what we see in the film.
It's safe to say this wasn't by design...at least I hope it wasn't. The script is already a strike, emphasizing why marriage in general is worth saving but not why we should care to see THIS marriage saved. It makes the film maker's intentions a bit too apparent for this as a, loathe as I am to normally use this line since I feel it's abused too often, propaganda piece for the sanctity of marriage.
I'm not just jumping the gun or being anti-Christian here, either. Honestly, like almost anything in this world, I feel Christianity used responsibly can be a good thing...keywords being 'used responsibly.' The behind the scenes features (yes, after riding out this movie, we decided to stick out the extras for car crash value) include one of the major backers of the film talking about how marriage is threatened in this country. The propaganda element is definitely deliberate, if not by conscious intent.
Incidentally, I would like to take a moment to thank them for just focusing on the divorce part of the problem. I don't even want to think what would happen if this film decided to take a swing at the gay marriage protests as well.
We learn next to nothing of this couple personality-wise, well, to be specific, there's nothing for them as far as their interaction. We see plenty of them at their respective workplaces and how they interact with their friends/coworkers. The problem is, except for the flaws they're supposed to overcome by the end of the film, there's strangely nothing to them when interacting with one another.
...outside of perhaps Caleb's tendency to resort to violence in his backyard. There's a whole running joke of sorts where his solution to hostilities is to take inanimate objects out to the yard and beat them, only to realize the neighbors are watching...on second thought, maybe THIS is why they don't have a child. Curiously, this is a trait he never actually gets over. In fact, he uses it at one point as a means of dealing with one of his other flaws:
Tempted by cyberporn? Take your computer out back and annihilate it with a baseball bat. I can't help but think two things here:
1) Somehow, calling this an extreme response seems to be underselling it. In terms of 'I can't control my problem' this is like a guy with wandering eye deciding, rather than simply learn restraint, he's going to burn down a local strip club. This isn't so much an act of strength as a man deciding he has no control over himself.
2) To this end, I sure hope they weren't paying their bills by e-banking, or Caleb's inability to keep both hands on the keyboard )may have just done more harm than good.
Which leads to the other fault of this movie - the acting. Now, I know with the general low budget and the general 'propaganda' nature of the movie, I shouldn't necessarily expect high art per se. But even then, the weak acting really undermines the message here. The one strong performance in the film comes from one of Caleb's coworkers played by Ken Bevel, and that's despite his character being used as a mouthpiece for the writers in many of the scenes. Maybe the fact the guy's passionate enough about it in real life helps. All I know is, he gets results for his scenes, so good on him in this.
The rest run from the forgettable, to the laughably bad. Much to his own chagrin, Mr. Cameron tends to fall into the latter category. Especially during scenes of anger.
Even while writing this, the more I look, the more I feel like the very core idea of the film could, with a better cast and writer/director, have been worth something. Hell, with a capable enough writer, they could have even managed to work the Christianity elements in without them carrying the feel of a Chick Tract (minus the hatred for all things non-Protestant, anyway.) Unfortunately, the building blocks that make up the film are all so underwhelming and focused more on what they're saying rather than how it's delivered (and like it or not, how you say it DOES count in a film, doubly so in a film with a message,) resulting in a film that's at best uninspired, and at worst preachy. In the end, we're supposed to feel happy for Caleb and Catherine, but the film's given us no reason to.
Once this went off, I just felt this bizarre sense of discomfort at the fact this program demonstrates its effectiveness to us through convincing two people to stop fighting and simply coexist. Not love each other, just coexist. Even the choice in end song seems to emphasize that unintentional sense of "Feelings are irrelevant here, God wants you to together for life" with lines like 'when you go to step outside, there's an angel stopping you' (paraphrased, mind you.)
I don't know about you, but that sounds less spiritual and more kind of threatening. Like I just picture a strong arm with wings barring the guy's exit, even on errands.
Wow...that was a bit more of a rambler than I expected it would be. Maybe I'm just not cut out for fundamentalist cinema (...won't stop me from trying again in the future.)
So yeah...while I did resist the temptation to try and find something truly tasteless for Valentine's this year (imagine if I'd opted to make good on that promise of revisiting I Spit on Your Grave here?) I, oddly enough, walked away from this more disturbed by what I saw than I had honestly intended. I mean, I expected something that was inadvertently hilarious in its attempts at being serious. While parts of that delivered, I also couldn't help but be let down by the message they delivered with a straight face (albeit I'm sure they may have meant it to be a bit nicer than their execution makes it come across.)
Isn't propaganda supposed to be all about appealing to the emotions, guys?
Anyway, that wraps up for this entry. and speaking of emotions, next week I visit, and attempt to make peace with, an old grudge of film and nerding that, due to recent circumstances, many others have also found themselves re-examining.
Will my conclusions be any different? We'll see when it gets done.
Till then. May you and any loved ones not find you're together simply because the angels won't let you leave.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
and it's back to work!
and so we return for another week in what will hopefully be a more consistent run here at the Third Row.
During that downtime of trying to get things back up and running over the last few months, several questions emerged as far as how to improve the content here. ...well, beyond there actually being some to begin with.
While these general entries on news and wrap-ups have been nice, they do seem to be missing out on part of what this blog was started to do - review and spread the word about some of the weirder shit out there in film. The kinds of things where, unless you're actively digging, you don't get to hear as much about them, if at all.
With this in mind, we're going back into the radioactive sections of the cinematic salt mines to try and bring up some more mutants to show you all. These plan to be especially interesting since most of these even I haven't seen before sitting down to write about them.
So we're all getting something out of this (...beyond the inevitable regret later.)
Anyway...with that in mind, here we go
---
No doubt we're all familiar with the old saying about imitation as the sincerest form of flattery. There's certainly some truth to this phrase, of course. If something gets aped by enough people, it's cause it was seen as good enough the first time to follow the example of.
...of course, this doesn't always assume the imitator will be as good as the original. In fact, more often than not, it will likely completely miss what made the original good and instead just serve as an example of how not to do it...
...assuming it's remembered anyway.
Which brings us to this week's film.
In the aftermath of the smash success of William Friedkin's The Exorcist in '73, we inevitably saw, as big successes tend to do, a metric crapton of knockoffs and cash-ins on the occult horror genre. Yes, metric crapton is a technical term. They don't recognize it as a form of measurement in the US, but take my word for it.
In the midst of this, in 1975, came this rather curious mess. A film that I haven't rightly named yet because I'm not sure which name to call it by (as of my last check, I count four titles.)
In starting, I should probably identify it by the title that first made me curious. As a general rule, I try to learn more about a film before I let myself get interested, but in this case, it was really hard not to be sold right off the bat. How often can you find a movie with the title 'I Don't Want To Be Born'?
...no. Really. That actually is one of the titles it was marketed under.
This film has also, over the years, been marketed under the titles 'Sharon's Baby', 'The Monster', and 'The Devil Within Her' (the latter proves rather interesting as this was also used as an alternate name for another failed occult horror film a year prior called 'Beyond the Door'.)
Title number two on that list is also part of where my misconceptions about what this movie would be lifting from came from. I mean, yes, riding the Exorcist gravy train was inevitable for the time period, but with an alternate title like this and a plotline involving a baby possessed by the devil, one would inevitably expect the movie to be also riding the coat tails of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby.
To their credit, it wasn't an RB knockoff...
...in turn however, the resemblance to Ray Bradbury's short story 'The Small Assassin' raised eyebrows at several points (which is kind of sad since the first time I read the story, I felt like it could honestly make a great short movie.)
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
To sum up the movie for those who haven't seen it, heard of it, and who may likely have no interest in seeing it for yourselves, let's try and sum this up.
The movie follows British couple Lucy and Gino Carlesi . The movie begins with Lucy giving birth. The birth itself doesn't appear to be going well. By 'not going well' I mean that 'guest star' Donald Pleasance describes it as "It's like he doesn't want to be born." Why this element is brought up in the movie isn't really clear. I mean, it's discussed in passing in a scene or two, but it never really seems to amount to anything.
There is certainly something up with the child, however. As we learn in a flashback, the baby itself has been cursed by a dwarf.
...I'm gonna let that sit for a second before I explain.
...OK? We good?
OK. Now, to explain, early in the movie, we learn that Lucy (played by Joan Collins), prior to meeting her husband, worked as a dancer in a British club. The nature of the dancing seems to vary from whether it's full on stripping, or just some still-dressed burlesque dancing...largely dependent on how much of a sleazy bastard they want her former boss (John Steiner) to be. Anyway, in flashback, we learn that, alongside the numerous women in various phases of undress, one of Lucy's costars was a dwarf named Hercules (George Claydon, who spends much of this movie looking downright uncomfortable to be there.) It turns out Hercules had a thing for Lucy...and by a thing, I mean we find out Lucy just seemed to be a magnetic for lecherous guys back in the day. In this case leading to quite possibly the only film where one will ever see Joan Collins being groped by a dwarf. However, Lucy is a principled woman (she's already sleeping with the boss,) so she turns Hercules down.
Bowing out gracefully, he proceeds to curse her in probably one of the most straightforward, if lackluster ways possible, transcribed for your
enjoyment:
"YOU WILL HAVE A BABY, A MONSTER, AN EVIL MONSTER CONCEIVED IN YOUR WOMB, AS BIG AS I AM SMALL AND POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL HIMSELF!"
(Note: To properly maintain effect, the line must be said all in one breath with no breaks.)
Now, despite the fact that Hercules appears to have NO occult credentials beyond the fact that he's a dwarf, which this movie seems to believe is enough, his curse DOES somehow come to pass. Little baby Nicholas is seen as bigger and heavier than most babies...and possessed of a tendency for physical violence (within a day, the child is somehow able to rake his fingers across Lucy's face and draw blood, for just one example.)
Can do this
There's a distinct possibility you probably had it coming
As far as the baby's concerned, I want to clarify something. As you can see, this baby looks perfectly normal. It's not like this is 'It's Alive' where the baby is a fanged, clawed monster that can slaughter anything that comes near it. In fact, most of what it does happens, almost comically, off screen. In fact, the only times we get any sort of confirmation the baby has any stake beyond the ending come either
a) when the child is confronted with Christian elements (primarily Sister Albana, a nun and Gino's own sister, whose presence induces Nicholas to not only cry, but summon a sound I'm sure they meant to sound evil, but really sounds more like applause.)
and
b) During a few select moments, usually when Lucy's watching, when the baby turns into Hercules. In fact, the movie seems to suggest that, with a few exceptions, the baby does seem to channel him whenever he's about to kill someone.
Also, whenever Nicholas 'turns into' Hercules, he's wearing the same outfit.
Leading to moments like this:
In true horror movie fashion, most of the cast remain oblivious to Nicholas's evil, often falling into their predictable roles - Ralph Bates (as Gino) is the loving father who can't seem to see his child as evil, Joan Collins half-sees it, but doesn't really seem to do anything for it, Donald Pleasance is the classic 'rational science' guy who's doomed to die just because he's not gonna see it coming. In fact, Eileen Atkins's Sister Albana seems to be the only person who knows what's what, which is why she seems to be the only one to take any action (in a finale that screams that it was harvested from The Exorcist.)
Anyway, much of the baby's killing spree is, as said, done off camera, what few onscreen antics we do see being carried out by Claydon dressed as a child (in arguably the creepiest part of the movie.) As a result, over the course of the movie, we see the cast being lured to their deaths by some bizarre giggling after which they're taken out by someone off-camera. I can kind of see why, to a degree...I mean it WOULD be hard to take the site of people being murdered by a baby seriously (even less so a dwarf dressed like a baby) but really, the fault there lies less in the filmmakers and more in the concept itself.
To that end, the execution in general doesn't help here either. With a good cast and director, a weak idea can still manage to pass for watchable. Unfortunately, this film doesn't really seem to capture any of the three. Most of the cast are largely just there for the paycheck and mostly just reading their lines off without much effort (Hilary Mason as the couple's nanny/housekeeper is particularly bad at this.) Overall, only two of the cast members in this actually do feel like they're making an attempt...and of those, only one really seems to succeed. Donald Pleasance, in a shift from many of his standard roles, actually manages to come across as warm in this movie...of course, that's also largely thanks to the lack of performances by much of the supporting cast. The one other attempt at effort coming from Bates as Gino, who proves that the British rule about accents DOES have its exceptions, care of an Italian accent that feels strangely reminscient of Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat voice.
In trying to figure out how to sum this up...several hours later, about the best thing I can think to say about the problem with this movie is...it doesn't seem to add up at all. I don't mean it doesn't make sense. It's pretty easy to parse out the plot to. Nor do I mean I'm automatically opposed to the idea of a film with its own warped sense of logic (Hell, some films it's great, such as the Adam West Batman movie, where Batman has the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes dropping acid.) The problem here is just...there's no real reason for the entire premise to be happening. In a setting that is otherwise free of any occult presence, the idea that one dwarf was miffed that he only got to second base (and a very half-hearted second base at that) and, summarily, would be able to cast a curse on the spot in a single exclamation: a curse that, with no sort of ritual or offering, cursed a woman to bearing a child that would be channel to himself and the Devil.
How badly off is the Devil in this movie that he is able to respond to such a request on relatively short notice without the dwarf appearing to make any offer on his end of things? It makes Satan seem like a failed actor who takes bit gigs on third-rate television shows cause he's THAT desperate for any sort of work.
This almost sounds less like something from a modern day horror
story and more from a fairy tale...though I'd like to believe even a fairy tale would do a bit better than "But alas, because the princess would not let the dwarf do more than clumsily fondle her breasts, due to her own tawdry affair with the local prince, he placed a sinister curse on her."
...it just feels like a really weird place to start a story from.
Also, the writers don't even seem to know how far they want this curse to go. After the dwarf lays it, it never appears on his part again, despite his receiving more screen time than was probably needed. In fact, after that flashback, we get almost no indication he's ever done anything occult or unsavory for the rest of the movie. It isn't until the very end of the movie that an attempt is made to reconcile this plot thread, but in the end all it really accomplishes is ripping off a better class of movie and properly showing Claydon's apparent agony at being in this film.
I know some would argue I'm expecting too much of this, and that I should tell myself it's just a movie...but the problem is, most other bad movies, I can at least make out some semblance of logic. It's usually sporadic and badly done, but there's at least more of a sense of method to it. This is one of those rare cases of a bad film where I can almost picture the writer responding to questions with "Just cause."
Whether this is because this was just a completely mishandled storyline, or maybe this script got run through a thresher during production, I don't know. If anyone can fill me in, by all means do so...but as it stands, the finished product just sounds like it got rolled out in five minutes and was followed by the statement "If we hurry, we can still make happy hour."
On a plus, there is some nice unintentional comedy (for an example, see the image below, placed at the bottom for the spoiler-sensitive.) But overall, unless you're keen for a mess of a movie that manages to misfire almost every cylinder, but sometimes timing itself just right to get a few laughs at just how bizarre it gets, you're not likely to get anything else of note from this film...
...unless maybe you have a thing for Collins. If that's the case, then you might find some benefit in this afterall, since the film does manage to find a few excuses to show her in her underwear (just realize if you are one of the people in that camp, you will have to deal with some creepy dwarf presence in one of them.)
With this, things seem to be getting back on track. Please join us again next week when we reach into the horrific grab-bag of worldwide cinematic insanity the web has to offer.
Just remember, after this week, we can still go further downhill.
...aaaand NOW for the prime spoiler
During that downtime of trying to get things back up and running over the last few months, several questions emerged as far as how to improve the content here. ...well, beyond there actually being some to begin with.
While these general entries on news and wrap-ups have been nice, they do seem to be missing out on part of what this blog was started to do - review and spread the word about some of the weirder shit out there in film. The kinds of things where, unless you're actively digging, you don't get to hear as much about them, if at all.
With this in mind, we're going back into the radioactive sections of the cinematic salt mines to try and bring up some more mutants to show you all. These plan to be especially interesting since most of these even I haven't seen before sitting down to write about them.
So we're all getting something out of this (...beyond the inevitable regret later.)
Anyway...with that in mind, here we go
---
No doubt we're all familiar with the old saying about imitation as the sincerest form of flattery. There's certainly some truth to this phrase, of course. If something gets aped by enough people, it's cause it was seen as good enough the first time to follow the example of.
...of course, this doesn't always assume the imitator will be as good as the original. In fact, more often than not, it will likely completely miss what made the original good and instead just serve as an example of how not to do it...
...assuming it's remembered anyway.
Which brings us to this week's film.
In the aftermath of the smash success of William Friedkin's The Exorcist in '73, we inevitably saw, as big successes tend to do, a metric crapton of knockoffs and cash-ins on the occult horror genre. Yes, metric crapton is a technical term. They don't recognize it as a form of measurement in the US, but take my word for it.
In the midst of this, in 1975, came this rather curious mess. A film that I haven't rightly named yet because I'm not sure which name to call it by (as of my last check, I count four titles.)
In starting, I should probably identify it by the title that first made me curious. As a general rule, I try to learn more about a film before I let myself get interested, but in this case, it was really hard not to be sold right off the bat. How often can you find a movie with the title 'I Don't Want To Be Born'?
...no. Really. That actually is one of the titles it was marketed under.
This film has also, over the years, been marketed under the titles 'Sharon's Baby', 'The Monster', and 'The Devil Within Her' (the latter proves rather interesting as this was also used as an alternate name for another failed occult horror film a year prior called 'Beyond the Door'.)
Title number two on that list is also part of where my misconceptions about what this movie would be lifting from came from. I mean, yes, riding the Exorcist gravy train was inevitable for the time period, but with an alternate title like this and a plotline involving a baby possessed by the devil, one would inevitably expect the movie to be also riding the coat tails of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby.
To their credit, it wasn't an RB knockoff...
...in turn however, the resemblance to Ray Bradbury's short story 'The Small Assassin' raised eyebrows at several points (which is kind of sad since the first time I read the story, I felt like it could honestly make a great short movie.)
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
To sum up the movie for those who haven't seen it, heard of it, and who may likely have no interest in seeing it for yourselves, let's try and sum this up.
The movie follows British couple Lucy and Gino Carlesi . The movie begins with Lucy giving birth. The birth itself doesn't appear to be going well. By 'not going well' I mean that 'guest star' Donald Pleasance describes it as "It's like he doesn't want to be born." Why this element is brought up in the movie isn't really clear. I mean, it's discussed in passing in a scene or two, but it never really seems to amount to anything.
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.
...I'm gonna let that sit for a second before I explain.
...OK? We good?
OK. Now, to explain, early in the movie, we learn that Lucy (played by Joan Collins), prior to meeting her husband, worked as a dancer in a British club. The nature of the dancing seems to vary from whether it's full on stripping, or just some still-dressed burlesque dancing...largely dependent on how much of a sleazy bastard they want her former boss (John Steiner) to be. Anyway, in flashback, we learn that, alongside the numerous women in various phases of undress, one of Lucy's costars was a dwarf named Hercules (George Claydon, who spends much of this movie looking downright uncomfortable to be there.) It turns out Hercules had a thing for Lucy...and by a thing, I mean we find out Lucy just seemed to be a magnetic for lecherous guys back in the day. In this case leading to quite possibly the only film where one will ever see Joan Collins being groped by a dwarf. However, Lucy is a principled woman (she's already sleeping with the boss,) so she turns Hercules down.
Bowing out gracefully, he proceeds to curse her in probably one of the most straightforward, if lackluster ways possible, transcribed for your
enjoyment:
"YOU WILL HAVE A BABY, A MONSTER, AN EVIL MONSTER CONCEIVED IN YOUR WOMB, AS BIG AS I AM SMALL AND POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL HIMSELF!"
(Note: To properly maintain effect, the line must be said all in one breath with no breaks.)
Now, despite the fact that Hercules appears to have NO occult credentials beyond the fact that he's a dwarf, which this movie seems to believe is enough, his curse DOES somehow come to pass. Little baby Nicholas is seen as bigger and heavier than most babies...and possessed of a tendency for physical violence (within a day, the child is somehow able to rake his fingers across Lucy's face and draw blood, for just one example.)
Can do thisThere's a distinct possibility you probably had it coming
As far as the baby's concerned, I want to clarify something. As you can see, this baby looks perfectly normal. It's not like this is 'It's Alive' where the baby is a fanged, clawed monster that can slaughter anything that comes near it. In fact, most of what it does happens, almost comically, off screen. In fact, the only times we get any sort of confirmation the baby has any stake beyond the ending come either
a) when the child is confronted with Christian elements (primarily Sister Albana, a nun and Gino's own sister, whose presence induces Nicholas to not only cry, but summon a sound I'm sure they meant to sound evil, but really sounds more like applause.)
and
b) During a few select moments, usually when Lucy's watching, when the baby turns into Hercules. In fact, the movie seems to suggest that, with a few exceptions, the baby does seem to channel him whenever he's about to kill someone.
Also, whenever Nicholas 'turns into' Hercules, he's wearing the same outfit.
Leading to moments like this:
Which looks better
1
1
In true horror movie fashion, most of the cast remain oblivious to Nicholas's evil, often falling into their predictable roles - Ralph Bates (as Gino) is the loving father who can't seem to see his child as evil, Joan Collins half-sees it, but doesn't really seem to do anything for it, Donald Pleasance is the classic 'rational science' guy who's doomed to die just because he's not gonna see it coming. In fact, Eileen Atkins's Sister Albana seems to be the only person who knows what's what, which is why she seems to be the only one to take any action (in a finale that screams that it was harvested from The Exorcist.)
Though to be fair, casting the devil out
WAS seen as a valid parenting technique during the mid-70s.
WAS seen as a valid parenting technique during the mid-70s.
Anyway, much of the baby's killing spree is, as said, done off camera, what few onscreen antics we do see being carried out by Claydon dressed as a child (in arguably the creepiest part of the movie.) As a result, over the course of the movie, we see the cast being lured to their deaths by some bizarre giggling after which they're taken out by someone off-camera. I can kind of see why, to a degree...I mean it WOULD be hard to take the site of people being murdered by a baby seriously (even less so a dwarf dressed like a baby) but really, the fault there lies less in the filmmakers and more in the concept itself.
Is this the most embarrassing death in a horror film?
Perhaps not, but it sure makes a strong bid for it.
Perhaps not, but it sure makes a strong bid for it.
To that end, the execution in general doesn't help here either. With a good cast and director, a weak idea can still manage to pass for watchable. Unfortunately, this film doesn't really seem to capture any of the three. Most of the cast are largely just there for the paycheck and mostly just reading their lines off without much effort (Hilary Mason as the couple's nanny/housekeeper is particularly bad at this.) Overall, only two of the cast members in this actually do feel like they're making an attempt...and of those, only one really seems to succeed. Donald Pleasance, in a shift from many of his standard roles, actually manages to come across as warm in this movie...of course, that's also largely thanks to the lack of performances by much of the supporting cast. The one other attempt at effort coming from Bates as Gino, who proves that the British rule about accents DOES have its exceptions, care of an Italian accent that feels strangely reminscient of Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat voice.
In trying to figure out how to sum this up...several hours later, about the best thing I can think to say about the problem with this movie is...it doesn't seem to add up at all. I don't mean it doesn't make sense. It's pretty easy to parse out the plot to. Nor do I mean I'm automatically opposed to the idea of a film with its own warped sense of logic (Hell, some films it's great, such as the Adam West Batman movie, where Batman has the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes dropping acid.) The problem here is just...there's no real reason for the entire premise to be happening. In a setting that is otherwise free of any occult presence, the idea that one dwarf was miffed that he only got to second base (and a very half-hearted second base at that) and, summarily, would be able to cast a curse on the spot in a single exclamation: a curse that, with no sort of ritual or offering, cursed a woman to bearing a child that would be channel to himself and the Devil.
How badly off is the Devil in this movie that he is able to respond to such a request on relatively short notice without the dwarf appearing to make any offer on his end of things? It makes Satan seem like a failed actor who takes bit gigs on third-rate television shows cause he's THAT desperate for any sort of work.
This almost sounds less like something from a modern day horror
story and more from a fairy tale...though I'd like to believe even a fairy tale would do a bit better than "But alas, because the princess would not let the dwarf do more than clumsily fondle her breasts, due to her own tawdry affair with the local prince, he placed a sinister curse on her."
...it just feels like a really weird place to start a story from.
Also, the writers don't even seem to know how far they want this curse to go. After the dwarf lays it, it never appears on his part again, despite his receiving more screen time than was probably needed. In fact, after that flashback, we get almost no indication he's ever done anything occult or unsavory for the rest of the movie. It isn't until the very end of the movie that an attempt is made to reconcile this plot thread, but in the end all it really accomplishes is ripping off a better class of movie and properly showing Claydon's apparent agony at being in this film.
Here we see him being brought back
after another failed attempt to escape.
after another failed attempt to escape.
I know some would argue I'm expecting too much of this, and that I should tell myself it's just a movie...but the problem is, most other bad movies, I can at least make out some semblance of logic. It's usually sporadic and badly done, but there's at least more of a sense of method to it. This is one of those rare cases of a bad film where I can almost picture the writer responding to questions with "Just cause."
Whether this is because this was just a completely mishandled storyline, or maybe this script got run through a thresher during production, I don't know. If anyone can fill me in, by all means do so...but as it stands, the finished product just sounds like it got rolled out in five minutes and was followed by the statement "If we hurry, we can still make happy hour."
On a plus, there is some nice unintentional comedy (for an example, see the image below, placed at the bottom for the spoiler-sensitive.) But overall, unless you're keen for a mess of a movie that manages to misfire almost every cylinder, but sometimes timing itself just right to get a few laughs at just how bizarre it gets, you're not likely to get anything else of note from this film...
...unless maybe you have a thing for Collins. If that's the case, then you might find some benefit in this afterall, since the film does manage to find a few excuses to show her in her underwear (just realize if you are one of the people in that camp, you will have to deal with some creepy dwarf presence in one of them.)
Not there just yet, but just keep reminding yourself
a baby channeling a dwarf's strength is doing this.
It won't make it any less ridiculous, but it MIGHT
make it funnier.
a baby channeling a dwarf's strength is doing this.
It won't make it any less ridiculous, but it MIGHT
make it funnier.
With this, things seem to be getting back on track. Please join us again next week when we reach into the horrific grab-bag of worldwide cinematic insanity the web has to offer.
Just remember, after this week, we can still go further downhill.
...aaaand NOW for the prime spoiler
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Live! Live! Live, damn you! Live!!!
Well, it's officially a new year.
A time for new beginnings, making good on resolutions (in short, this year we may actually get this up to a regular pace again) and, if you're one of the ones who still genuinely believes it, getting the most out of the last 12 months before the Mayans kill us all (...or something to that extent. Hell, even they can't get the story straight half the time.)
Inevitably, for all of the five of you who've stuck with us here through all the stops and starts, you know who you are (...and I'm sorry too) this is about the time when we here at the Third Row run the top five picks of the previous year (held over for two weeks in this case for a grace period. One part conferring, one part trying to get in a straggler or two before posting.)
Now then, for those who are just tuning in...and who aren't that interested in going through the archives, the set-up here is easy enough.
1) These aren't in any set order. Just cause I listed something first doesn't mean it's #1 over another pick on this list.
2) This list is based on the films of last year that I have seen at this point. There are still many on my 'to do' list I regretfully didn't get to in time for this. Chances are, when I do get to them, they may upset the balance (it's happened before. Really kicked me in the teeth back in 2007.)
I have to admit. This one was both trickier and easier than I expected it would be. Cause when this year was good, it was generally pretty spot-on.
...but the disappointments. Oh Lord, the disappointments.
Despite that, and with some weighing over, I've come up with a top 5 that, based on what I've seen at this point, I can look at and not feel like something is on there just as a placeholder. They may be supplanted in the future, but at least for now, I can say it feels like they've earned their place here.
Having cleared up the preamble, and in the hopes of kicking this year off right, here we go...
A time for new beginnings, making good on resolutions (in short, this year we may actually get this up to a regular pace again) and, if you're one of the ones who still genuinely believes it, getting the most out of the last 12 months before the Mayans kill us all (...or something to that extent. Hell, even they can't get the story straight half the time.)
Inevitably, for all of the five of you who've stuck with us here through all the stops and starts, you know who you are (...and I'm sorry too) this is about the time when we here at the Third Row run the top five picks of the previous year (held over for two weeks in this case for a grace period. One part conferring, one part trying to get in a straggler or two before posting.)
Now then, for those who are just tuning in...and who aren't that interested in going through the archives, the set-up here is easy enough.
1) These aren't in any set order. Just cause I listed something first doesn't mean it's #1 over another pick on this list.
2) This list is based on the films of last year that I have seen at this point. There are still many on my 'to do' list I regretfully didn't get to in time for this. Chances are, when I do get to them, they may upset the balance (it's happened before. Really kicked me in the teeth back in 2007.)
I have to admit. This one was both trickier and easier than I expected it would be. Cause when this year was good, it was generally pretty spot-on.
...but the disappointments. Oh Lord, the disappointments.
Despite that, and with some weighing over, I've come up with a top 5 that, based on what I've seen at this point, I can look at and not feel like something is on there just as a placeholder. They may be supplanted in the future, but at least for now, I can say it feels like they've earned their place here.
Having cleared up the preamble, and in the hopes of kicking this year off right, here we go...
Because someone eventually thought
"What if we turned Doorbell Ditch into an extreme sport?"
What ensued was both a new pasttime and
leading cause of death.
What ensued was both a new pasttime and
leading cause of death.
-Drive
This was a film that I was surprised by compared to my expectations...
...this was partially because I went in with almost no idea of what to expect.
Marketing on this film was...virtually nonexistent, actually. Sure, there were spots for it running, but they never really gave you much of an indication what exactly the film was supposed to be about. I mainly gave it a go on the strength of the subsequent reviews and recommendations from others.
The film itself was an interesting mix. On the one hand, its story felt very much like a standard issue action film. Many of the classic elements to it, the mysterious stranger helping a down on their luck family, the sinister mobster villain, the old friend who was once a pro, etc...and yet, the film itself executes them in such a way that it actually manages to feel fresh. This is thanks in one part to the direction, which really does lend the film a lot of its style that keeps it from being lost among the many 'shakey-cam' action offerings out there. The other thing that helps this one stand out - the casting. For what could have easily just been cheap renderings of old character tropes, the cast on this film manage to breath a lot of life into these old hats (even Ryan Gosling manages to take the stoic hero type and make it an interesting, if cryptic, character to watch.) That said, the two best performances in this cast have to go to the two senior cast members - Bryan Cranston (proving there is still gonna be work for him after Breaking Bad ends) as a former racer turned mechanic who never quite seemed to accept that his glory days were over, and Albert Brooks playing VERY against type as the film's crime boss antagonist. The latter especially surprised me, in part since at first it almost seems like this could be a Brooks-style character, a touch sarcastic, but ultimately still mostly just a talker.
...then we see what he's like when he's been crossed. For a man most well known for his comedy work, Brooks can be surprisingly intimidating when pissed off (to be perfectly blunt.)
Is it an original film? Technically, no. Despite that, it still does well at taking the old and making it feel like something new.
This was a film that I was surprised by compared to my expectations...
...this was partially because I went in with almost no idea of what to expect.
Marketing on this film was...virtually nonexistent, actually. Sure, there were spots for it running, but they never really gave you much of an indication what exactly the film was supposed to be about. I mainly gave it a go on the strength of the subsequent reviews and recommendations from others.
The film itself was an interesting mix. On the one hand, its story felt very much like a standard issue action film. Many of the classic elements to it, the mysterious stranger helping a down on their luck family, the sinister mobster villain, the old friend who was once a pro, etc...and yet, the film itself executes them in such a way that it actually manages to feel fresh. This is thanks in one part to the direction, which really does lend the film a lot of its style that keeps it from being lost among the many 'shakey-cam' action offerings out there. The other thing that helps this one stand out - the casting. For what could have easily just been cheap renderings of old character tropes, the cast on this film manage to breath a lot of life into these old hats (even Ryan Gosling manages to take the stoic hero type and make it an interesting, if cryptic, character to watch.) That said, the two best performances in this cast have to go to the two senior cast members - Bryan Cranston (proving there is still gonna be work for him after Breaking Bad ends) as a former racer turned mechanic who never quite seemed to accept that his glory days were over, and Albert Brooks playing VERY against type as the film's crime boss antagonist. The latter especially surprised me, in part since at first it almost seems like this could be a Brooks-style character, a touch sarcastic, but ultimately still mostly just a talker.
...then we see what he's like when he's been crossed. For a man most well known for his comedy work, Brooks can be surprisingly intimidating when pissed off (to be perfectly blunt.)
Is it an original film? Technically, no. Despite that, it still does well at taking the old and making it feel like something new.
"Look, what you've been through sounds terrible, and I do
feel bad for you...I'm just warning you, I'm not sure the
Academy's going to recognize it is all."
feel bad for you...I'm just warning you, I'm not sure the
Academy's going to recognize it is all."
-Martha Marcy May Marlene
Let the record show, we're now 3-for-3 on an 'actress goes off the rails' movie making it into the top five. I feel like this should be a warning sign of some sort...either that or this just means I have some strange offshoot of schadenfreude.
Of course, it also helps in this particular case that many of the other things addressed in this movie clicked well for me beyond just the challenge of 'will this continue the streak?'
The premise of the film is a bit strange at first because it's not really a complete closed narrative. The focus of the movie is around Martha, a woman who's fled from a communal cult she's been living in for some time. The film intercuts between her attempts to get her life back on track as well as showing us what her life back at the commune was like.
One of the things that surprised me the most about this (and from the look of reviews, annoyed many others) is how the film handles its narrative shifts. There is no real set up to a flashback per se. No dissolves, no real prompt, nothing. It simply shifts into the past and leaves you to piece it out yourself. This element works particularly well for the film in a large part thanks to the fact it dabbles in two things that, admittedly, I love to see done in a film in capable hands - paranoia and the unreliable narrator. Thanks to how these shifts are handled, we're thrown for a loop trying to determine what's then and what's now...and how much of it is genuinely real and how much is either paranoia or altered memories. To this end, as viewers, we also can't help but sympathize with her sister (as well as her fiance) who find themselves at times growing frustrated with Martha's erratic behavior. To their credit, the film avoids making the couple seem unreasonable. As outsiders, we sympathize with them as well as we do with what we've seen Martha has been through (it's worth noting the film makes it pretty clear she hasn't told them.)
Which leads to the other thing I have to commend this film on - given how easily films tend to cave to the temptation to depict cults as these outlandish groups of either eccentric loonies or robe-wearing Satanists, there's something refreshing and more than a bit disturbing in how the cult is depicted in this film. From the initial flashbacks of Martha's first days at the commune, where she became Marcy May, to helping indoctrinate new members, to taking part in the increasingly more brutal actions ordered by their leader, we see a down-to-Earth, and altogether rather disturbingly plausible vision of a cult.
Between these multiple strong elements, as well as some great acting (especially Elizabeth Olsen as Martha, who really helps drive home how badly this cult has affected her) it's a shame this film will probably be passed over come awards season. I mean, I haven't put much stock in them in years, but it's gonna be a damned shame if they let this performance go unacknowledged.
Let the record show, we're now 3-for-3 on an 'actress goes off the rails' movie making it into the top five. I feel like this should be a warning sign of some sort...either that or this just means I have some strange offshoot of schadenfreude.
Of course, it also helps in this particular case that many of the other things addressed in this movie clicked well for me beyond just the challenge of 'will this continue the streak?'
The premise of the film is a bit strange at first because it's not really a complete closed narrative. The focus of the movie is around Martha, a woman who's fled from a communal cult she's been living in for some time. The film intercuts between her attempts to get her life back on track as well as showing us what her life back at the commune was like.
One of the things that surprised me the most about this (and from the look of reviews, annoyed many others) is how the film handles its narrative shifts. There is no real set up to a flashback per se. No dissolves, no real prompt, nothing. It simply shifts into the past and leaves you to piece it out yourself. This element works particularly well for the film in a large part thanks to the fact it dabbles in two things that, admittedly, I love to see done in a film in capable hands - paranoia and the unreliable narrator. Thanks to how these shifts are handled, we're thrown for a loop trying to determine what's then and what's now...and how much of it is genuinely real and how much is either paranoia or altered memories. To this end, as viewers, we also can't help but sympathize with her sister (as well as her fiance) who find themselves at times growing frustrated with Martha's erratic behavior. To their credit, the film avoids making the couple seem unreasonable. As outsiders, we sympathize with them as well as we do with what we've seen Martha has been through (it's worth noting the film makes it pretty clear she hasn't told them.)
Which leads to the other thing I have to commend this film on - given how easily films tend to cave to the temptation to depict cults as these outlandish groups of either eccentric loonies or robe-wearing Satanists, there's something refreshing and more than a bit disturbing in how the cult is depicted in this film. From the initial flashbacks of Martha's first days at the commune, where she became Marcy May, to helping indoctrinate new members, to taking part in the increasingly more brutal actions ordered by their leader, we see a down-to-Earth, and altogether rather disturbingly plausible vision of a cult.
Between these multiple strong elements, as well as some great acting (especially Elizabeth Olsen as Martha, who really helps drive home how badly this cult has affected her) it's a shame this film will probably be passed over come awards season. I mean, I haven't put much stock in them in years, but it's gonna be a damned shame if they let this performance go unacknowledged.
OK...so there's a few bits of exaggeration. It's a documentary
about a comedian. You can't be THAT shocked.
about a comedian. You can't be THAT shocked.
-Conan O'Brien Can't Stop
I'm gonna start this by saying, had it not actually been made in 2010 and only screened in '11, there's a possibility Conan's spot on this list would have gone to Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. This isn't to say this is a lesser film (actually, given the different styles and subjects, comparing would be tricky here) just saying...despite the different year, that was a great documentary (OK, mini-plug over.)
As I'd explained in part when discussing films seen over the summer, this film was another for this year that really surprised me when I saw it. Given this was a behind the scenes look at Conan's live tour when he was legally blocked from appearing on television, the humorous parts of the movie were a given. The parts that caught me by surprise, however, were some of the moments in between the joking. While I had a great time watching the performance footage, some of the parts that stuck out for me the most were actually the behind the scenes moments, things like some like joking around with his team, some of his talks with his children (both at home and, while on the tour, via webcam), and even the moments of frustration/fatigue on the road. This movie could have easily just been all about the on-stage persona. It could have come across as the proverbial vanity piece. Instead, we get the bad with the good and, as a result, we get a much more human portrait of the comedian. This probably won't be a documentary that goes down in history as an earthshaker, but for what it is and what it could have been, it handled its content very well.
I'm gonna start this by saying, had it not actually been made in 2010 and only screened in '11, there's a possibility Conan's spot on this list would have gone to Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. This isn't to say this is a lesser film (actually, given the different styles and subjects, comparing would be tricky here) just saying...despite the different year, that was a great documentary (OK, mini-plug over.)
As I'd explained in part when discussing films seen over the summer, this film was another for this year that really surprised me when I saw it. Given this was a behind the scenes look at Conan's live tour when he was legally blocked from appearing on television, the humorous parts of the movie were a given. The parts that caught me by surprise, however, were some of the moments in between the joking. While I had a great time watching the performance footage, some of the parts that stuck out for me the most were actually the behind the scenes moments, things like some like joking around with his team, some of his talks with his children (both at home and, while on the tour, via webcam), and even the moments of frustration/fatigue on the road. This movie could have easily just been all about the on-stage persona. It could have come across as the proverbial vanity piece. Instead, we get the bad with the good and, as a result, we get a much more human portrait of the comedian. This probably won't be a documentary that goes down in history as an earthshaker, but for what it is and what it could have been, it handled its content very well.
"How about Ghandi? Did you see that one?
A House of Sand and Fog?
...please kid, don't make me discuss the live-action
Thunderbirds movie here, give me something!"
A House of Sand and Fog?
...please kid, don't make me discuss the live-action
Thunderbirds movie here, give me something!"
-Hugo
Joining Drive on the double-bill of 'No, really marketing, what's this movie about?' this was another that promotion gave me NO idea on. Word of mouth, as well as a couple of promising interviews by Scorsese finally won me over. The resulting film honestly surprised me...partially because, despite strong word of mouth, I was still going in skeptical (in large part due to the 3D. I'll spare you all that rant.)
After the film was over though...I have to admit, I was impressed. For a man known for his passion for cinema, this movie, more than most of his offerings, is probably one of Scorcese's purest love letters to the silver screen. While the title and main focus are on the young boy Hugo (Asa Butterfield, proving yes, America does still manage to get some good child actors, even if they're somewhat rare), much of the film is about both the love of, and the history of, the early days of film (to a degree personified in Ben Kingsley as Georges Melies, a performance that hopefully means Kingsley's career rough patch is behind him at last.)
Alongside the salute to the pioneers of film that makes a major theme of this movie, Scorsese in general delivers a very heartfelt and fleshed out world. Everyone of the regulars seen at the train station is seen as having their own lives we peek into, instead of just being talking heads to serve a singular purpose. Even Sacha Baron Cohen as the film's antagonistic station officer is revealed to be more than just a clumsy force of authority, his own feelings and insecurities helping showcase that, despite his general comedic styling, Cohen can handle drama.
...and yes, I will admit, even the 3D managed to surprise me on this movie. After many of its applications so far, I expected a case of the obvious stand-outs and spectacle tricks that have become such a staple for the new technology. Instead, I was surprised to find it actually used in such a way that it felt like I wasn't even really watching 3D...and by that I don't mean it didn't work, I mean it all just felt natural. Instead of favoring big spectacle scenes, the real gem of the technology in this film was in how much depth it adds to the film. The crowded train stations feel more, for lack of a better way to put it, there. For all my cynicism towards the big push for the technology, this gave me faith that maybe it still has potential in the right hands.
Joining Drive on the double-bill of 'No, really marketing, what's this movie about?' this was another that promotion gave me NO idea on. Word of mouth, as well as a couple of promising interviews by Scorsese finally won me over. The resulting film honestly surprised me...partially because, despite strong word of mouth, I was still going in skeptical (in large part due to the 3D. I'll spare you all that rant.)
After the film was over though...I have to admit, I was impressed. For a man known for his passion for cinema, this movie, more than most of his offerings, is probably one of Scorcese's purest love letters to the silver screen. While the title and main focus are on the young boy Hugo (Asa Butterfield, proving yes, America does still manage to get some good child actors, even if they're somewhat rare), much of the film is about both the love of, and the history of, the early days of film (to a degree personified in Ben Kingsley as Georges Melies, a performance that hopefully means Kingsley's career rough patch is behind him at last.)
Alongside the salute to the pioneers of film that makes a major theme of this movie, Scorsese in general delivers a very heartfelt and fleshed out world. Everyone of the regulars seen at the train station is seen as having their own lives we peek into, instead of just being talking heads to serve a singular purpose. Even Sacha Baron Cohen as the film's antagonistic station officer is revealed to be more than just a clumsy force of authority, his own feelings and insecurities helping showcase that, despite his general comedic styling, Cohen can handle drama.
...and yes, I will admit, even the 3D managed to surprise me on this movie. After many of its applications so far, I expected a case of the obvious stand-outs and spectacle tricks that have become such a staple for the new technology. Instead, I was surprised to find it actually used in such a way that it felt like I wasn't even really watching 3D...and by that I don't mean it didn't work, I mean it all just felt natural. Instead of favoring big spectacle scenes, the real gem of the technology in this film was in how much depth it adds to the film. The crowded train stations feel more, for lack of a better way to put it, there. For all my cynicism towards the big push for the technology, this gave me faith that maybe it still has potential in the right hands.
"...and that big face with the camera up there, that's
director Lars von Trier. He comes by the Earth every
few years to sow misery and doom upon us all.
It is an act of nature as cruel as it is beautiful..."
director Lars von Trier. He comes by the Earth every
few years to sow misery and doom upon us all.
It is an act of nature as cruel as it is beautiful..."
-Melancholia
...and once again, right after the heartwarming entry on this list IT'S LARS VON TRIER TIME (...this was coincidence, I swear.)
As von Trier's first project after Antichrist, this already felt slightly ominous when he described this movie as having his 'first bad ending'
(...after how the prior film ended, I'd be slightly afraid of a man who'd count that as happy...just saying...)
To the man's credit, his statement was technically accurate. It IS rather hard to top ending your movie with the literal end of the world (...what? It's not a spoiler. You find it out in the first 10 minutes of the movie.)
Of course, the main draw of the movie isn't actually 'will the Earth be saved?'. Instead, taking place over two arcs, the film follows one small group during the final days before the end of the world and how they all respond as it becomes increasingly clear that there's no getting out of this.
The casting on this one...I have to admit, had I seen these names on paper, I wouldn't have expected these performances. Well, OK, I'd have expected Charlotte Gainsbourg. She's shown the range with von Trier before. The other two principle leads though really surprised me on this one in particular, Kirsten Dunst making one Hell of a comeback as Gainsbourg's sister who's been suffering from clinical depression. It's a very different role for her, but she handles it remarkably well. Rounding out the trio, we have Kiefer Sutherland reminding us that, yes, he CAN handle other non-action roles...if anything, this role almost seems a counter to that idea, as he starts as the seeming voice of reason, only to find the foundations of his assertions coming undone around him.
The interesting thing about how all of this is handled is that, despite this being an 'end of the world' movie, it's also a very personal film. In particular with the focus on Dunst's depression. The film does a considerable job really capturing the feel of what depression can, and does, do to people. By comparison, the impending planetary collision almost feels like a minor setback. For as controversial as the man may be, it's hard to dispute that von Trier has once again proven himself as a talented director on this film. Likewise, it again affirms the man's surprisingly good eye for visuals. Some of the shots in this film are stunning.
I have to admit, for my earlier mentions of the disappointments, there were also a lot of promising titles had to pick from this year (alongside the many I still haven't watched yet, I feel a need to give shoutouts to a couple of titles from this year that didn't make the cut. In particular: Hanna, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Meek's Cutoff, and Attack the Block.)
While they may not have made this top 5, I will still say they're worth the watch if you have the opportunity.Overall, I'm not gonna say 2011 was an all-around great year. We had some strong entries, but also several stretches of mixed offerings.
...on a plus side, a year like that really DOES help you appreciate the good ones that much more.
Anyway...between my own inner self-nagging, and a half-hearted attempt to acknowledge the custom of New Year's Resolutions, hopefully we'll be back here next week and finally writing again on a regular basis.
If all goes well, see you all then.
...and once again, right after the heartwarming entry on this list IT'S LARS VON TRIER TIME (...this was coincidence, I swear.)
As von Trier's first project after Antichrist, this already felt slightly ominous when he described this movie as having his 'first bad ending'
(...after how the prior film ended, I'd be slightly afraid of a man who'd count that as happy...just saying...)
To the man's credit, his statement was technically accurate. It IS rather hard to top ending your movie with the literal end of the world (...what? It's not a spoiler. You find it out in the first 10 minutes of the movie.)
Of course, the main draw of the movie isn't actually 'will the Earth be saved?'. Instead, taking place over two arcs, the film follows one small group during the final days before the end of the world and how they all respond as it becomes increasingly clear that there's no getting out of this.
The casting on this one...I have to admit, had I seen these names on paper, I wouldn't have expected these performances. Well, OK, I'd have expected Charlotte Gainsbourg. She's shown the range with von Trier before. The other two principle leads though really surprised me on this one in particular, Kirsten Dunst making one Hell of a comeback as Gainsbourg's sister who's been suffering from clinical depression. It's a very different role for her, but she handles it remarkably well. Rounding out the trio, we have Kiefer Sutherland reminding us that, yes, he CAN handle other non-action roles...if anything, this role almost seems a counter to that idea, as he starts as the seeming voice of reason, only to find the foundations of his assertions coming undone around him.
The interesting thing about how all of this is handled is that, despite this being an 'end of the world' movie, it's also a very personal film. In particular with the focus on Dunst's depression. The film does a considerable job really capturing the feel of what depression can, and does, do to people. By comparison, the impending planetary collision almost feels like a minor setback. For as controversial as the man may be, it's hard to dispute that von Trier has once again proven himself as a talented director on this film. Likewise, it again affirms the man's surprisingly good eye for visuals. Some of the shots in this film are stunning.
I have to admit, for my earlier mentions of the disappointments, there were also a lot of promising titles had to pick from this year (alongside the many I still haven't watched yet, I feel a need to give shoutouts to a couple of titles from this year that didn't make the cut. In particular: Hanna, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Meek's Cutoff, and Attack the Block.)
While they may not have made this top 5, I will still say they're worth the watch if you have the opportunity.Overall, I'm not gonna say 2011 was an all-around great year. We had some strong entries, but also several stretches of mixed offerings.
...on a plus side, a year like that really DOES help you appreciate the good ones that much more.
Anyway...between my own inner self-nagging, and a half-hearted attempt to acknowledge the custom of New Year's Resolutions, hopefully we'll be back here next week and finally writing again on a regular basis.
If all goes well, see you all then.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Hallowen Coverage: The 'Down to Milk Duds Edition'
(...and now we owe the Milk Duds people an apology for that one, don't we?)
Anyway, it's run a bit later than we'd have liked, but at last, we come to the end of the October feature at the Third Row. It's been a lot of ups and downs, but also been a lot of great practice at getting these out in a more presentable and, to a degree, timely fashion. With fewer movies to manage in the weeks to come, hopefully this will help future reviews get sorted on a regular basis, starting next week.
That's right, not rid of me that easily.
...or you are if you just don't come back...
...please come back...
ANYWAY. This marks the last week of this year's Halloween run. The final four were a pretty odd spread after everything we've done to this point, but for the most part, I still feel it was a satisfactory way to send the month out.
Having said that, let's begin.
"...no. It's not a Goddamn Voldemort costume."
Despite Kenner's best attempts to keep the incident silent, it was only a matter of time before photos of Stretch Armstrong's
suicide made their way to the public.
Anyway, it's run a bit later than we'd have liked, but at last, we come to the end of the October feature at the Third Row. It's been a lot of ups and downs, but also been a lot of great practice at getting these out in a more presentable and, to a degree, timely fashion. With fewer movies to manage in the weeks to come, hopefully this will help future reviews get sorted on a regular basis, starting next week.
That's right, not rid of me that easily.
...or you are if you just don't come back...
...please come back...
ANYWAY. This marks the last week of this year's Halloween run. The final four were a pretty odd spread after everything we've done to this point, but for the most part, I still feel it was a satisfactory way to send the month out.
Having said that, let's begin.
"...no. It's not a Goddamn Voldemort costume."10/28. Nosferatu the Vampyre
Up until it was suggested for this list, I had no idea Werner Herzog had done a remake of this film. Learning that he did however, and that he gave the title role to his colleague, the talented and potentially insane Klaus Kinski, I was automatically curious. I went in expecting well made insanity from the duo that, prior to this, had brought us Aguirre, Wrath of God. The film I got was unexpected, but certainly welcome. It was a good movie, certainly, but surprisingly not as insane as I was expecting (although some of the behind the scenes stories regarding the treatment of the rats echo back to the more classic tales of the proverbial gauntlet that is Herzog movies.) In terms of horror as well as a vampire story, this one might seem a bit daunting on the first watch - it takes its story from F.W. Murnau's silent film of the same name, but also takes advantage of the fact Bram Stoker's book that Murnau was loosely adapting is finally public domain, and changes up names accordingly. The result is a variation on the Dracula story that is equal parts traditional but also altogether unique. Alongside that, the movie is a very slow burn. Many have criticized the film as running too long and too slow, and while I can see where the complaints have some basis, I would say it's worth seeing anyway.
This is fueled in part by two things. The first, Kinski's performance as Dracula. The rest of the cast are all largely good, don't get me wrong, but it's Kinski's turn as the film's titular vampire that really sells this. While adorning the similar batlike makeup of silent actor Max Schreck, he manages to capture a sad sort of humanity in the Count: world-weary and tired of his immortality. Even just looking at him in many scenes, one can see a weariness in his eyes that Kinski delivers perfectly. The other strong suit that makes this film worth the watch - to be perfectly blunt, it's beautiful. No. Really. Herzog has a great eye for visuals on this movie, as well as with his music cues. Alongside some great locales, he is able to shoot some striking sequences within the film. Even a somewhat surreal sequence with minimal dialogue in which Lucy (Isabelle Adjani) wanders through the village in the throes of plague is handled in such a way that it feels more artistic than horrifying. As remakes go, I'm not sure I can rightly say this one surpasses its predecessor, in part since it changes enough to rightly stand on its own two legs (as any proper remake really should.) I will, however, say this certainly qualifies as a good case study, along with last entry's The Thing, for why remakes can be respectable if placed in the right hands.
Up until it was suggested for this list, I had no idea Werner Herzog had done a remake of this film. Learning that he did however, and that he gave the title role to his colleague, the talented and potentially insane Klaus Kinski, I was automatically curious. I went in expecting well made insanity from the duo that, prior to this, had brought us Aguirre, Wrath of God. The film I got was unexpected, but certainly welcome. It was a good movie, certainly, but surprisingly not as insane as I was expecting (although some of the behind the scenes stories regarding the treatment of the rats echo back to the more classic tales of the proverbial gauntlet that is Herzog movies.) In terms of horror as well as a vampire story, this one might seem a bit daunting on the first watch - it takes its story from F.W. Murnau's silent film of the same name, but also takes advantage of the fact Bram Stoker's book that Murnau was loosely adapting is finally public domain, and changes up names accordingly. The result is a variation on the Dracula story that is equal parts traditional but also altogether unique. Alongside that, the movie is a very slow burn. Many have criticized the film as running too long and too slow, and while I can see where the complaints have some basis, I would say it's worth seeing anyway.
This is fueled in part by two things. The first, Kinski's performance as Dracula. The rest of the cast are all largely good, don't get me wrong, but it's Kinski's turn as the film's titular vampire that really sells this. While adorning the similar batlike makeup of silent actor Max Schreck, he manages to capture a sad sort of humanity in the Count: world-weary and tired of his immortality. Even just looking at him in many scenes, one can see a weariness in his eyes that Kinski delivers perfectly. The other strong suit that makes this film worth the watch - to be perfectly blunt, it's beautiful. No. Really. Herzog has a great eye for visuals on this movie, as well as with his music cues. Alongside some great locales, he is able to shoot some striking sequences within the film. Even a somewhat surreal sequence with minimal dialogue in which Lucy (Isabelle Adjani) wanders through the village in the throes of plague is handled in such a way that it feels more artistic than horrifying. As remakes go, I'm not sure I can rightly say this one surpasses its predecessor, in part since it changes enough to rightly stand on its own two legs (as any proper remake really should.) I will, however, say this certainly qualifies as a good case study, along with last entry's The Thing, for why remakes can be respectable if placed in the right hands.
Despite Kenner's best attempts to keep the incident silent, suicide made their way to the public.
10/29. Uzumaki
When I learned there was actually a live-action adaptation of Junji Ito's horror manga of the same name, I had to do a bit of a doubletake at first. This was cause I wasn't sure how one would be able to properly adapt the three-volume, somewhat episodic story of a small town caught up in the throes of a curse that induces obsession, madness, and finally David Cronenberg-level body horror (all themed around, as the title suggests, spirals.) It's a great read, but one that presents a challenge to put on the big screen. For all my misgivings, especially in learning that director Higuchinsky was adapting from the manga before it was completed, I was fairly satisfied with the film in question. It's definitely not the most faithful of adaptations, to be certain - alongside having to retool parts of the story that hadn't been told yet, as well as working within the confines of a movie length, the film has something of a lighter air to it than the original manga, with many scenes carrying a bit more of a humorous over the top element to them. While this may irritate purists, and even I admit I was put off at first, it still holds up for the film itself, as even without the humorous scenes, the movie never seems to try to lay on the full nightmarish feel that Ito's story gains as it picks up to its borderline apocalyptic finale. Story aside, the movie does still prove fairly competent otherwise - while some of the acting may be a bit over the top compared to the other J-horror features on this list, it still fits within the film itself, and the effects are actually quite good (especially given the general level of FX budgets in Japanese cinema.) Though the CG may be a bit dated now, the sequences of bodies literally spiralling on themselves still look fairly well done 11 years later.
Is this a flawless adaptation? Not really by any stretch. By the same token, however, it technically isn't by design. The lack of an 'official' ending to the source gives it the opportunity to take on more of its own direction to a degree. The end result is a film that, while somewhat flawed, is still largely entertaining. Just remember it's not going to be a carbon copy and enjoy the descent.
"Really now, Hutter, do I sneak into YOUR room while you sleep?
Sure, I do it to other people, but I haven't done it to you yet!"
When I learned there was actually a live-action adaptation of Junji Ito's horror manga of the same name, I had to do a bit of a doubletake at first. This was cause I wasn't sure how one would be able to properly adapt the three-volume, somewhat episodic story of a small town caught up in the throes of a curse that induces obsession, madness, and finally David Cronenberg-level body horror (all themed around, as the title suggests, spirals.) It's a great read, but one that presents a challenge to put on the big screen. For all my misgivings, especially in learning that director Higuchinsky was adapting from the manga before it was completed, I was fairly satisfied with the film in question. It's definitely not the most faithful of adaptations, to be certain - alongside having to retool parts of the story that hadn't been told yet, as well as working within the confines of a movie length, the film has something of a lighter air to it than the original manga, with many scenes carrying a bit more of a humorous over the top element to them. While this may irritate purists, and even I admit I was put off at first, it still holds up for the film itself, as even without the humorous scenes, the movie never seems to try to lay on the full nightmarish feel that Ito's story gains as it picks up to its borderline apocalyptic finale. Story aside, the movie does still prove fairly competent otherwise - while some of the acting may be a bit over the top compared to the other J-horror features on this list, it still fits within the film itself, and the effects are actually quite good (especially given the general level of FX budgets in Japanese cinema.) Though the CG may be a bit dated now, the sequences of bodies literally spiralling on themselves still look fairly well done 11 years later.
Is this a flawless adaptation? Not really by any stretch. By the same token, however, it technically isn't by design. The lack of an 'official' ending to the source gives it the opportunity to take on more of its own direction to a degree. The end result is a film that, while somewhat flawed, is still largely entertaining. Just remember it's not going to be a carbon copy and enjoy the descent.
"Really now, Hutter, do I sneak into YOUR room while you sleep?Sure, I do it to other people, but I haven't done it to you yet!"
10/30. Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens
And so, as we come to the home stretch, we come up on F.W. Murnau's silent vampire classic (and for those wondering why I did the Herzog remake first, that was all thanks to loading up the titles in a randomizer and letting it sort them out, I swear.) As silent film goes, this movie has actually held up quite well. There's a few jolts in the editing, likely a result of the film's rather hectic hisory (it was nearly lost to the ages in a copyright dispute with Bram Stoker's widow.) Despite this, much of it remains in good shape and, for its time, is still a good movie to watch. The acting and FX, while showing some of the style of the time period, don't feel exceedingly aged. In particular with regard to actor Max Shreck as Graf Orlok, the vampire of the title. Both his performance and the makeup they used for his appearance still manage to work well. The story, for all of its allegations of copyright infringement, has actually changed quite a bit making for its own unique experience and one that, even if one recognizes Stoker's work, they won't necessarily predict. To be honest, I actually think the ending for this version is a bit better, if somewhat less climactic. Also, I feel the film's portrayal of the vampire is probably one of the best I've seen done in film: half the time, it strikes without being seen on camera, and is instead, within the setting, mistaken for plague. Finally, one thing I will say Murnau's version got arguably better than Herzog's was the emphasis on the plague element. In the remake, while it's present, it doesn't feel as strong a presence as it is in this version, where we see town policies in effect to try and halt its spread, and even the inevitable mob paranoia that ensues as a result of the 'disease'.
For an additional bit of trivia on the note of their depiction of the undead, this film has a secondary claim to fame as actually being the originator of the 'Vampires die in sunlight' concept. Prior to this, it mostly just slowed them down, as far as I can tell. Just another of the many ways this film has cemented its place in history. One that, if you have any interest in silent film, film history, or vampire cinema, it would be worth your time to look into.
On an additional note, while there are a lot of different copies of this movie circulating out there care of public domain, for what it's worth, I'd vote to see if you can get the version distributed by Kino entertainment. This is done for three reasons:
1) Many of the other public domain versions are made of earlier cuts of the movie, where certain scenes may be missing as they weren't available at the time
2) Many of the other editions use altered soundtracks. This particular release does feature a rerecording of the original musical score.
and
3) To be perfectly honest, their cleaned up remaster looks amazing for the film's age. Many of the other versions I've seen released under numerous other labels haven't held up anywhere near as well in quality as this one did.
...and no, I'm not getting paid by them to say this. They genuinely do good treatments for silent film.
That said, now on to the final entry to cap off this wild, somewhat erratic month.
Though the awkward silence at the table is mutual
And so, as we come to the home stretch, we come up on F.W. Murnau's silent vampire classic (and for those wondering why I did the Herzog remake first, that was all thanks to loading up the titles in a randomizer and letting it sort them out, I swear.) As silent film goes, this movie has actually held up quite well. There's a few jolts in the editing, likely a result of the film's rather hectic hisory (it was nearly lost to the ages in a copyright dispute with Bram Stoker's widow.) Despite this, much of it remains in good shape and, for its time, is still a good movie to watch. The acting and FX, while showing some of the style of the time period, don't feel exceedingly aged. In particular with regard to actor Max Shreck as Graf Orlok, the vampire of the title. Both his performance and the makeup they used for his appearance still manage to work well. The story, for all of its allegations of copyright infringement, has actually changed quite a bit making for its own unique experience and one that, even if one recognizes Stoker's work, they won't necessarily predict. To be honest, I actually think the ending for this version is a bit better, if somewhat less climactic. Also, I feel the film's portrayal of the vampire is probably one of the best I've seen done in film: half the time, it strikes without being seen on camera, and is instead, within the setting, mistaken for plague. Finally, one thing I will say Murnau's version got arguably better than Herzog's was the emphasis on the plague element. In the remake, while it's present, it doesn't feel as strong a presence as it is in this version, where we see town policies in effect to try and halt its spread, and even the inevitable mob paranoia that ensues as a result of the 'disease'.
For an additional bit of trivia on the note of their depiction of the undead, this film has a secondary claim to fame as actually being the originator of the 'Vampires die in sunlight' concept. Prior to this, it mostly just slowed them down, as far as I can tell. Just another of the many ways this film has cemented its place in history. One that, if you have any interest in silent film, film history, or vampire cinema, it would be worth your time to look into.
On an additional note, while there are a lot of different copies of this movie circulating out there care of public domain, for what it's worth, I'd vote to see if you can get the version distributed by Kino entertainment. This is done for three reasons:
1) Many of the other public domain versions are made of earlier cuts of the movie, where certain scenes may be missing as they weren't available at the time
2) Many of the other editions use altered soundtracks. This particular release does feature a rerecording of the original musical score.
and
3) To be perfectly honest, their cleaned up remaster looks amazing for the film's age. Many of the other versions I've seen released under numerous other labels haven't held up anywhere near as well in quality as this one did.
...and no, I'm not getting paid by them to say this. They genuinely do good treatments for silent film.
That said, now on to the final entry to cap off this wild, somewhat erratic month.
Though the awkward silence at the table is mutual only one of them is quiet due to their dead daughter
the other just saw one of the cooks spit in the soup
Try and guess which is which!
the other just saw one of the cooks spit in the soup
Try and guess which is which!
10/31. Don't Look Now
You know, while this isn't exactly the most 'Halloween'-suited film on this list by a long shot, I have to say, I feel it's appropriate the randomizer picked this to wrap up the month. This is, strangely enough, due to why it isn't the most Halloweenish movie on the list. If you were to just watch a sliced out segment of this movie, you might not even realize it's considered a horror film. Much of the movie is based around the character study of couple John and Laura Baxter (played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie) and their coping after the death of their young daughter in the movie's prologue. It's only as the film goes on that one begins to get caught up in the mystery that makes up the undercurrent of the movie. This mystery, of course, being what makes this so fitting as a closer for this month - this is a film where, if you keep attentive during the buildup (which is good, don't get me wrong) it pays off in the final scene. I won't go into the full details of that, though I imagine some may have had part of it spoiled for them care of either the internet or Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments (both of which, often, ironically tend to omit the part that really makes the ending such a jolt, focusing on the more immediate reveal) suffice it to say, it definitely shows the effort put into both Allan Scott's script (adapted from a Daphne Du Maurier story) and Nicolas Roeg's direction. Like many of the other worthwhile titles on this list, it's an interesting film in that it functions both as a good horror story and frankly as just a good story in general. The two leads both lend a lot of genuine emotion to their roles, to the point that many believed their then controversial sex scene wasn't just an act. There is a genuine chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, even when one considers the rift that's formed between their characters over the loss of one of their children. As an additional bonus, this film also joins Picnic at Hanging Rock and Nosferatu the Vampyre in the 'Wish You Were Here' category of films that really make the most of their location and manage to get some great setting shots as a result. I know I've said this several times, but it bears repeating here, this definitely isn't one I can guarantee will be a hit (...Hell, I can't promise that with any film thanks to general human nature.) However if you don't mind a slow burn with a rather surprising payoff (that disguises itself under another payoff) then this could definitely be worth your time. Worst case scenario, even if it doesn't necessarily perform for you as a horror, at least you'll get a fairly well made character piece out of it.
With that rather curious finale, we here at the Third Row now, after two weeks delay, declare this month's October sweep to be closed. We'll be attempting this next year and, hopefully, have it running in a much more timely fashion.
Speaking of, please come back next week when we'll hopefully have things running back up to par again...starting with one film that's been on the Third Row's chopping block for the better part of a year now.
See ya then!
You know, while this isn't exactly the most 'Halloween'-suited film on this list by a long shot, I have to say, I feel it's appropriate the randomizer picked this to wrap up the month. This is, strangely enough, due to why it isn't the most Halloweenish movie on the list. If you were to just watch a sliced out segment of this movie, you might not even realize it's considered a horror film. Much of the movie is based around the character study of couple John and Laura Baxter (played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie) and their coping after the death of their young daughter in the movie's prologue. It's only as the film goes on that one begins to get caught up in the mystery that makes up the undercurrent of the movie. This mystery, of course, being what makes this so fitting as a closer for this month - this is a film where, if you keep attentive during the buildup (which is good, don't get me wrong) it pays off in the final scene. I won't go into the full details of that, though I imagine some may have had part of it spoiled for them care of either the internet or Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments (both of which, often, ironically tend to omit the part that really makes the ending such a jolt, focusing on the more immediate reveal) suffice it to say, it definitely shows the effort put into both Allan Scott's script (adapted from a Daphne Du Maurier story) and Nicolas Roeg's direction. Like many of the other worthwhile titles on this list, it's an interesting film in that it functions both as a good horror story and frankly as just a good story in general. The two leads both lend a lot of genuine emotion to their roles, to the point that many believed their then controversial sex scene wasn't just an act. There is a genuine chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, even when one considers the rift that's formed between their characters over the loss of one of their children. As an additional bonus, this film also joins Picnic at Hanging Rock and Nosferatu the Vampyre in the 'Wish You Were Here' category of films that really make the most of their location and manage to get some great setting shots as a result. I know I've said this several times, but it bears repeating here, this definitely isn't one I can guarantee will be a hit (...Hell, I can't promise that with any film thanks to general human nature.) However if you don't mind a slow burn with a rather surprising payoff (that disguises itself under another payoff) then this could definitely be worth your time. Worst case scenario, even if it doesn't necessarily perform for you as a horror, at least you'll get a fairly well made character piece out of it.
With that rather curious finale, we here at the Third Row now, after two weeks delay, declare this month's October sweep to be closed. We'll be attempting this next year and, hopefully, have it running in a much more timely fashion.
Speaking of, please come back next week when we'll hopefully have things running back up to par again...starting with one film that's been on the Third Row's chopping block for the better part of a year now.
See ya then!
Saturday, November 5, 2011
First Week of November Clearance Candy Edition 1
Well, as promised, we here at the Third Row are going to continue, late as it is, to finish up the October month of horror (and rest assured in future years, this will actually end IN October.)
We realize we missed Halloween back there. Though, to be fair, so did much of the East coast, but that's another matter. Consider this the first of two entries akin to that other great Halloween tradition -- The candy the stores are marking down to get rid of so they can bus in the (far too early) Christmas goods.
With that, let's dim the lights and here we go...
10/21. The Others
Another from the files of 'How the Hell has it taken me this long to watch this movie?' I remember being aware of this film when it came out, and I had absolutely nothing against it. Quite the opposite, I was immediately reminded of a personal favorite ghost story by the ads alone (in the event one has to ask, it was 'The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James, which itself was also adapted into the movie 'The Innocents' back in the 60s.) So why did I not see this sooner? I have no idea, actually. Just didn't get around to watching until now was all. Suffice it to say, it was worth it. It's kind of surprised and, dare I say it, a bit refreshing to see a modern horror film still evading some of the conventional tropes. I don't just mean railing on gore here (which I wouldn't say is entirely without merit, as explicated on further below) but also the lack of traditional jump scares and broadcasted terrors. But I'll refrain from the usual old man railings on the state of horror and stick to this film. The other surprising thing was realizing I'd gone for as long as I had on seeing this movie and not had the ending spoiled for me. I have to hand it to them that, while there were definitely clues leading up to it, this still didn't feel like a film where it would be necessarily obvious. Even beyond that, the movie as a whole feels rather well put together, in particular in terms of its casting and setting, the latter of which feels appropriately like its own separate world while still feeling grounded in an actual period of history. It may have taken me ten years to see this, but all things considered, still glad I did finally get around to it.
This episode would go down in the annals of
television history as the single most disturbing
This Old House ever filmed.
We realize we missed Halloween back there. Though, to be fair, so did much of the East coast, but that's another matter. Consider this the first of two entries akin to that other great Halloween tradition -- The candy the stores are marking down to get rid of so they can bus in the (far too early) Christmas goods.
With that, let's dim the lights and here we go...
"...I TOLD you we'd get stuck.
Now are you going to call for help or do I have to?"
Now are you going to call for help or do I have to?"
10/21. The Others
Another from the files of 'How the Hell has it taken me this long to watch this movie?' I remember being aware of this film when it came out, and I had absolutely nothing against it. Quite the opposite, I was immediately reminded of a personal favorite ghost story by the ads alone (in the event one has to ask, it was 'The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James, which itself was also adapted into the movie 'The Innocents' back in the 60s.) So why did I not see this sooner? I have no idea, actually. Just didn't get around to watching until now was all. Suffice it to say, it was worth it. It's kind of surprised and, dare I say it, a bit refreshing to see a modern horror film still evading some of the conventional tropes. I don't just mean railing on gore here (which I wouldn't say is entirely without merit, as explicated on further below) but also the lack of traditional jump scares and broadcasted terrors. But I'll refrain from the usual old man railings on the state of horror and stick to this film. The other surprising thing was realizing I'd gone for as long as I had on seeing this movie and not had the ending spoiled for me. I have to hand it to them that, while there were definitely clues leading up to it, this still didn't feel like a film where it would be necessarily obvious. Even beyond that, the movie as a whole feels rather well put together, in particular in terms of its casting and setting, the latter of which feels appropriately like its own separate world while still feeling grounded in an actual period of history. It may have taken me ten years to see this, but all things considered, still glad I did finally get around to it.
This episode would go down in the annals oftelevision history as the single most disturbing
This Old House ever filmed.
10/22. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
For a classic I hadn't rewatched in years prior to this event, I have to say I'm really impressed with how well this movie's aged. I mean, compared to when I first watched this ages ago, I think I'm actually getting more out of it now than I did back then. A good chunk of this comes down to two things. The first is the way the movie is shot. Thanks to the pseudo-documentary style Tobe Hooper employs, one feels less of that usual 'fourth wall' separation one gets from many more recent films. Plus, I will admit, when younger, I believed John Laroquette's intro that this actually happened...granted, he wasn't TECHNICALLY lying, given the movie's backstory, but nevertheless. Between the shots taken, the grade of the film, and the somewhat chaotic display of some of the sets, there is enough of a sense of realism in many cases where one actually feels like they're almost within the film. Especially in Leatherface's infamous workshop, where one could start smelling the decay and not be at all surprised. The actors also lend their part to this realism as well. When one reads up on the behind the scenes for the movie, much of the stories are how this production puts its cast through Hell, and you can see it within the film. This was an intense experience, and the work reflects it accordingly, furthering that sense of grim faux-reality that pervades this film on the level that it does. The other of the two things I mentioned above, is what this film says about its viewers. I know, this sounds pretentious as Hell, but hear me out. This is one of those films where it's interesting to watch people's reactions to it. Especially the violence. Many speak of this movie as though it were a grand guignol style display of blood and gore. When one watches the movie, however...it's actually rather light on on-screen gore. In fact, compared to a lot of other films, it's fairly light in its bloodletting. Where it strikes a chord is less with what's shown and more what's implied, such as in one jarring sequence where one of the ill-fated travellers is killed with a mallet. You see none of the damage, but the wet sounds as the mallet makes contact speak volumes. In a way, the film is almost like a cinematic rorschach test. The amount of violence and gore you see within the film says more about you than it does about the movie itself (also makes a great way to respond to criticisms of the movie...if only for an interesting thought exercise.)
...and on a final note - that high-pitched squeal in the movie STILL chills me to this day.
Amid another year of song numbers and stilted comedy Jerry's reenactment of the torture scene from Reservoir Dogs with his grandkid would be the part of the retirement home talent show that would be remembered most.
For a classic I hadn't rewatched in years prior to this event, I have to say I'm really impressed with how well this movie's aged. I mean, compared to when I first watched this ages ago, I think I'm actually getting more out of it now than I did back then. A good chunk of this comes down to two things. The first is the way the movie is shot. Thanks to the pseudo-documentary style Tobe Hooper employs, one feels less of that usual 'fourth wall' separation one gets from many more recent films. Plus, I will admit, when younger, I believed John Laroquette's intro that this actually happened...granted, he wasn't TECHNICALLY lying, given the movie's backstory, but nevertheless. Between the shots taken, the grade of the film, and the somewhat chaotic display of some of the sets, there is enough of a sense of realism in many cases where one actually feels like they're almost within the film. Especially in Leatherface's infamous workshop, where one could start smelling the decay and not be at all surprised. The actors also lend their part to this realism as well. When one reads up on the behind the scenes for the movie, much of the stories are how this production puts its cast through Hell, and you can see it within the film. This was an intense experience, and the work reflects it accordingly, furthering that sense of grim faux-reality that pervades this film on the level that it does. The other of the two things I mentioned above, is what this film says about its viewers. I know, this sounds pretentious as Hell, but hear me out. This is one of those films where it's interesting to watch people's reactions to it. Especially the violence. Many speak of this movie as though it were a grand guignol style display of blood and gore. When one watches the movie, however...it's actually rather light on on-screen gore. In fact, compared to a lot of other films, it's fairly light in its bloodletting. Where it strikes a chord is less with what's shown and more what's implied, such as in one jarring sequence where one of the ill-fated travellers is killed with a mallet. You see none of the damage, but the wet sounds as the mallet makes contact speak volumes. In a way, the film is almost like a cinematic rorschach test. The amount of violence and gore you see within the film says more about you than it does about the movie itself (also makes a great way to respond to criticisms of the movie...if only for an interesting thought exercise.)
...and on a final note - that high-pitched squeal in the movie STILL chills me to this day.
Amid another year of song numbers and stilted comedy Jerry's reenactment of the torture scene from Reservoir Dogs with his grandkid would be the part of the retirement home talent show that would be remembered most.10/23. The Devil's Backbone
Like the earlier entry regarding Picnic at Hanging Rock, I'd say The Devil's Backbone is another one of those films I wouldn't necessarily qualify as a horror as many seem to. There is indeed a supernatural element to it, and it does lead to some effectively creepy moments, but the overall nature of the film seems to be, technically speaking, more of a drama with a supernatural element to it. This isn't to say the film isn't without its scare factor, but like del Toro's later work on Pan's Labyrinth, the scares are balanced between the supernatural and the real. It's appropriate he considers the two films sibling pieces, as both offset their supernatural with the horrors of how war effects people, both using the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. In this case, the supernatural takes the form of a ghost story, and presents itself quite well. As things proceed, we soon learn there are things in this film more fearful than ghosts. Part of what surprised me in this case compared to del Toro's other work is there is less of an overall sense of an immersive dark fantasy compared to the realms presented in the above Pan's and his directorial debut in Cronos. In this case, there is no other world to escape into, it remains locked into the stark, war-torn world of Spain that young Carlos and his friends have been consigned to. In its own way, it takes del Toro's already signatorily dark style and manages to make it darker. Despite that, it's still as fascinating to watch as his other films, and one can see why he considers it to be one of his best. The film has a lot to say for itself and, like many of his other films, does a good job of taking the fantastic and making it feel human. Not a film to go into if you're just looking for a quick horror story, but definitely one would recommend seeing.
Fun fact:
Like the earlier entry regarding Picnic at Hanging Rock, I'd say The Devil's Backbone is another one of those films I wouldn't necessarily qualify as a horror as many seem to. There is indeed a supernatural element to it, and it does lead to some effectively creepy moments, but the overall nature of the film seems to be, technically speaking, more of a drama with a supernatural element to it. This isn't to say the film isn't without its scare factor, but like del Toro's later work on Pan's Labyrinth, the scares are balanced between the supernatural and the real. It's appropriate he considers the two films sibling pieces, as both offset their supernatural with the horrors of how war effects people, both using the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. In this case, the supernatural takes the form of a ghost story, and presents itself quite well. As things proceed, we soon learn there are things in this film more fearful than ghosts. Part of what surprised me in this case compared to del Toro's other work is there is less of an overall sense of an immersive dark fantasy compared to the realms presented in the above Pan's and his directorial debut in Cronos. In this case, there is no other world to escape into, it remains locked into the stark, war-torn world of Spain that young Carlos and his friends have been consigned to. In its own way, it takes del Toro's already signatorily dark style and manages to make it darker. Despite that, it's still as fascinating to watch as his other films, and one can see why he considers it to be one of his best. The film has a lot to say for itself and, like many of his other films, does a good job of taking the fantastic and making it feel human. Not a film to go into if you're just looking for a quick horror story, but definitely one would recommend seeing.
Fun fact: As of this entry, four states of the union will excuse charges of grave robbing if you explain it's for a scavenger hunt. Go ahead, try it. You might be one of the lucky ones.
10/24. Let's Scare Jessica to Death
Remember a few entries back when I discussed how I feel paranoia is an underutilized concept in horror? This is another one of those films that makes such distrust its bread and butter to a marvelous effect. In particular, this takes it to an extent that is also rarer in film than it really should be - the concept of the unreliable narrator. Often, when this is employed, it's for little things. This movie, however, is one of those rare cases where you're left wondering if the entire movie has been painted by the narrator's paranoia. The titular Jessica, in a great turn by Zohra Lampert, is herself even unsure in many cases of what's real and what isn't. We hear her assertions as much to herself as the audience, as to what it and what isn't, and, like her, we are left wondering in the end if everything she saw was real, or just her losing her mind. Alongside the uncertainty, the story we see, or at least seem to see, is itself a rather fresh take on the vampire legend, exploring the concept in a different, but still familiar light. In some regards, the film shows its age as a product of the early 70s, moreso in aesthetic than in terms of the film aging problematically, but it's still something worth warning since some do get thrown by that. If you don't mind the idea of the early 70s look, however, you could be in for a fairly unique piece of both supernatural and psychological (both or none at all, depending on your interpretation) horror that you won't see many films similar too any time soon.
As the fear of the mythological hairy palms dissipated,
10/25. The Thing
One of the few, the proud, the remakes that don't suck. Part of me's almost tempted to leave this at that, but that would be not only criminally lazy (especially for the fact these entries are late as it is) but also, despite the praise, still underselling this film. While he will probably always get most of his recognition for creating the original Halloween, this definitely outstrips it as one of John Carpenter's best. This is especially true as it functions beyond just playing a rehash on a familiar tune. In fact, all it really shares in common with the earlier Howard Hawks rendition of the movie is the title and the fact they adapted the same source material. In that regard, Carpenter takes the point, crafting a film much closer to the original John G. Campbell short story. Further, basing things more on that, he crafts a film that, on its own merits, does a phenomenal job with crafting an air of suspense and paranoia. Carpenter and his cast and crew do a phenomenal job with one of the trickiest concepts to do right in film - an enemy that could literally be anyone or anything. The latter in particular pays off, care of a full FX and make-up crew lead by Rob Bottin crafting a veritable menagerie of mutations and creatures whose design is a nightmarish reworking of the lifeforms they once took the shape of. Thanks to this, there's no monster design throughout the film to consistently get used to, and the audience is left wondering what form this invader could take next. This isn't to say the effects alone carry the film, as arguably some of the biggest elements of suspense in the film actually come in the lead-ups to the monstrous reveal, including the now classic 'blood test' scene. Like the earlier Texas Chainsaw, this is a movie where the people in charge realize the best weapon in their arsenal is the audience's imagination, and they use it to the fullest, as well as flexing their own in the process.
I will give the Italians one thing
10/26. Cannibal Holocaust
One of the most controversial horror films on known record to this day, and I'm only now getting to it. This project's been an eye-opener. Thinking this'll have to be repeated next October.
That said, in the grand debate over whether this movie is cutting social satire or exploitative garbage...I'm actually surprised to find myself feeling a little of both. On the one hand, this is currently neck and neck with I Spit On Your Grave for this year's award for 'Film I've Felt the Least Comfortable Watching' and is one I'd have to do some actual psychological prep work to watch again, primarily with regards to the depictions of slaughter, both human and animal (and to a degree, staged and real.) With regard for what happens to the people...well...here's where I was actually impressed with the film from a writing perspective, if not from a visual one. For starters, I liked how they handled the...er...reveal on the final act. Traditionally in horror, if a protagonist is a jerk whose horror is reaping the rewards of their behavior, the film will show you that early on so it's established they deserved this. In this case, we start the film assuming these were naive victims, only for us to slowly learn they were, ironically, the callous monsters they were so hoping to find in the jungle. This element, really, is what gives a lot of justifiable ammunition to the arguments of this movie as satire. In an age where documentaries on certain topics still raise questions of authenticity in what the filmmakers may have nudged, tweaked, or conveniently left out to support their arguments, there's a certain grim familiarity in seeing the ill-fated film crew in this openly assaulting a suspected cannibal tribe purely to stage the illusion that they were attacked by another tribe (in one of the many disturbing displays of the movie.) By the time the fateful final reel is unfolding, there's a mixed sense of both revulsion and gratification - we can't help but be, understandably, disgusted by the acts we're seeing (which, for a bizarre bit of trivia, were so realistic looking the Italian government believed Deodato murdered his cast members and actually took him to court over it) but the people they are being carried out on are such utter bastards, a part of us, however small, can't help but feel they brought this down on themselves. This theme of shameless sensationalism also extends beyond just the film crew, whose drama is the 'film within the film' to the faux-documentary that is the main movie covering what happened to them. As we build to the vicious finale, there is concern over what protagonist Monroe (Robert Kerman) sees on the tapes, but the TV station still wants to run...until they see it for themselves.
Definitely not a movie to watch if you consider yourself to be weak of stomach, but at the same time, I will say a much smarter film than the initial premise would have you believe (despite the fact that, allegedly, there is much debate over how much of that was by design and how much was coincidental. Deodato has reportedly both confirmed and denied, depending on the interview, that the film had any statement on sensationalism in it.) I'm still feeling rather mixed on it even as I write this. I'm not even sure when I'll be able to really say one way or another on this. This is one where I'd say give it a shot for yourself, disclaimers noted, and see what you think. Just don't say I didn't warn you though...this alongside ISOYG for "If you're not sure, just let this one slide."
We here at the Third Row endorse only the finest in infant protection
10/27. The Baby's Room
For a film I went in on comparatively blind, I was surprised by this one. To clarify, this is both a plus and a minus, for reasons I will go into. This was part of the Spanish 6 Films To Keep You Awake series of horror films they aired on TV. In watching, you definitely get a sense of their made for TV budget, but it's not in a bad way. This entry at least makes good use of its lower budget, relying more on its script and the ideas therein, as well as a few admittedly well placed jump scares, to get its ideas across. That said, I'm not sure I'd rightly agree it's a film that would keep me scared to close my eyes. This isn't to say it's badly done. Actually, the idea is quite interesting, I'm just not rightly sure I'd say it works too well as a horror movie, though it starts in that mold. To wit, we start with a classic case of a young couple and their new home, an old house they've just bought and are happily moving into with their young baby. One night while settling in, with a new baby monitor they got from the in-laws, they overhear what sounds like a voice in their baby's room. Spurred on by this, the husband Juan (played by Javier Guttierez) invests in an infrared camera...and discovers a mysterious figure sitting by his baby's crib. For the first part of the film, one feels like we're getting a traditional ghost story. What we actually get, both for better and for worse, is something entirely different. As Juan researches the matter, it becomes a story of parallel realities and other worlds. It handles the concept fairly well and at times actually feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone, which is a definite plus. The drawback is, novel as the idea is, the scares kind of take a back seat to the interesting ideas. That aside, for a made for TV movie, it carries itself quite well on most fronts. I think the one other thing I would count as a strike against this would be the secondary plot string introduced in the movie's prologue and then later continued via an old woman. It seems like it could have been interesting as a way to help carry the film along, and at a few points it does do its job of helping give Juan the extra momentum in his quest for answers. The problem is, a lot of the time, it just feels like dead weight, adding needless scenes to the movie that would have been better suited to either more directly fleshing out the concepts or at least trying to return some of the eery moments from the first half of the movie. As a straight up horror title, this is kind of a disappointment. As a movie in general though, it's actually still a rather interesting take on the parallel worlds concept. If you're looking for a nice piece of science fiction (somewhat, the concepts are inherently sci-fi, but they don't really go into the nature of them) this is actually a nice little surprise to look into. May not leave you afraid to turn off the lights, but could raise some interesting thoughts about 'what ifs'.
--
4 days left now. Hopefully these will be up within the next day or so. Keep your eyes out, since after this, we'll be trying to get this back to work on a regular pace again!
Remember a few entries back when I discussed how I feel paranoia is an underutilized concept in horror? This is another one of those films that makes such distrust its bread and butter to a marvelous effect. In particular, this takes it to an extent that is also rarer in film than it really should be - the concept of the unreliable narrator. Often, when this is employed, it's for little things. This movie, however, is one of those rare cases where you're left wondering if the entire movie has been painted by the narrator's paranoia. The titular Jessica, in a great turn by Zohra Lampert, is herself even unsure in many cases of what's real and what isn't. We hear her assertions as much to herself as the audience, as to what it and what isn't, and, like her, we are left wondering in the end if everything she saw was real, or just her losing her mind. Alongside the uncertainty, the story we see, or at least seem to see, is itself a rather fresh take on the vampire legend, exploring the concept in a different, but still familiar light. In some regards, the film shows its age as a product of the early 70s, moreso in aesthetic than in terms of the film aging problematically, but it's still something worth warning since some do get thrown by that. If you don't mind the idea of the early 70s look, however, you could be in for a fairly unique piece of both supernatural and psychological (both or none at all, depending on your interpretation) horror that you won't see many films similar too any time soon.
As the fear of the mythological hairy palms dissipated, it was only inevitable the proverbial Old Wives would start escalating their claims of side effects.
10/25. The Thing
One of the few, the proud, the remakes that don't suck. Part of me's almost tempted to leave this at that, but that would be not only criminally lazy (especially for the fact these entries are late as it is) but also, despite the praise, still underselling this film. While he will probably always get most of his recognition for creating the original Halloween, this definitely outstrips it as one of John Carpenter's best. This is especially true as it functions beyond just playing a rehash on a familiar tune. In fact, all it really shares in common with the earlier Howard Hawks rendition of the movie is the title and the fact they adapted the same source material. In that regard, Carpenter takes the point, crafting a film much closer to the original John G. Campbell short story. Further, basing things more on that, he crafts a film that, on its own merits, does a phenomenal job with crafting an air of suspense and paranoia. Carpenter and his cast and crew do a phenomenal job with one of the trickiest concepts to do right in film - an enemy that could literally be anyone or anything. The latter in particular pays off, care of a full FX and make-up crew lead by Rob Bottin crafting a veritable menagerie of mutations and creatures whose design is a nightmarish reworking of the lifeforms they once took the shape of. Thanks to this, there's no monster design throughout the film to consistently get used to, and the audience is left wondering what form this invader could take next. This isn't to say the effects alone carry the film, as arguably some of the biggest elements of suspense in the film actually come in the lead-ups to the monstrous reveal, including the now classic 'blood test' scene. Like the earlier Texas Chainsaw, this is a movie where the people in charge realize the best weapon in their arsenal is the audience's imagination, and they use it to the fullest, as well as flexing their own in the process.
I will give the Italians one thing Their version of 'hidden object' games are easily more hardcore than ours.
10/26. Cannibal Holocaust
One of the most controversial horror films on known record to this day, and I'm only now getting to it. This project's been an eye-opener. Thinking this'll have to be repeated next October.
That said, in the grand debate over whether this movie is cutting social satire or exploitative garbage...I'm actually surprised to find myself feeling a little of both. On the one hand, this is currently neck and neck with I Spit On Your Grave for this year's award for 'Film I've Felt the Least Comfortable Watching' and is one I'd have to do some actual psychological prep work to watch again, primarily with regards to the depictions of slaughter, both human and animal (and to a degree, staged and real.) With regard for what happens to the people...well...here's where I was actually impressed with the film from a writing perspective, if not from a visual one. For starters, I liked how they handled the...er...reveal on the final act. Traditionally in horror, if a protagonist is a jerk whose horror is reaping the rewards of their behavior, the film will show you that early on so it's established they deserved this. In this case, we start the film assuming these were naive victims, only for us to slowly learn they were, ironically, the callous monsters they were so hoping to find in the jungle. This element, really, is what gives a lot of justifiable ammunition to the arguments of this movie as satire. In an age where documentaries on certain topics still raise questions of authenticity in what the filmmakers may have nudged, tweaked, or conveniently left out to support their arguments, there's a certain grim familiarity in seeing the ill-fated film crew in this openly assaulting a suspected cannibal tribe purely to stage the illusion that they were attacked by another tribe (in one of the many disturbing displays of the movie.) By the time the fateful final reel is unfolding, there's a mixed sense of both revulsion and gratification - we can't help but be, understandably, disgusted by the acts we're seeing (which, for a bizarre bit of trivia, were so realistic looking the Italian government believed Deodato murdered his cast members and actually took him to court over it) but the people they are being carried out on are such utter bastards, a part of us, however small, can't help but feel they brought this down on themselves. This theme of shameless sensationalism also extends beyond just the film crew, whose drama is the 'film within the film' to the faux-documentary that is the main movie covering what happened to them. As we build to the vicious finale, there is concern over what protagonist Monroe (Robert Kerman) sees on the tapes, but the TV station still wants to run...until they see it for themselves.
Definitely not a movie to watch if you consider yourself to be weak of stomach, but at the same time, I will say a much smarter film than the initial premise would have you believe (despite the fact that, allegedly, there is much debate over how much of that was by design and how much was coincidental. Deodato has reportedly both confirmed and denied, depending on the interview, that the film had any statement on sensationalism in it.) I'm still feeling rather mixed on it even as I write this. I'm not even sure when I'll be able to really say one way or another on this. This is one where I'd say give it a shot for yourself, disclaimers noted, and see what you think. Just don't say I didn't warn you though...this alongside ISOYG for "If you're not sure, just let this one slide."
We here at the Third Row endorse only the finest in infant protectionAudio monitors, video monitors, even hiring a
creepy man with glowing eyes to watch your child as they sleep.
Trust us, they're worth every penny.
creepy man with glowing eyes to watch your child as they sleep.
Trust us, they're worth every penny.
10/27. The Baby's Room
For a film I went in on comparatively blind, I was surprised by this one. To clarify, this is both a plus and a minus, for reasons I will go into. This was part of the Spanish 6 Films To Keep You Awake series of horror films they aired on TV. In watching, you definitely get a sense of their made for TV budget, but it's not in a bad way. This entry at least makes good use of its lower budget, relying more on its script and the ideas therein, as well as a few admittedly well placed jump scares, to get its ideas across. That said, I'm not sure I'd rightly agree it's a film that would keep me scared to close my eyes. This isn't to say it's badly done. Actually, the idea is quite interesting, I'm just not rightly sure I'd say it works too well as a horror movie, though it starts in that mold. To wit, we start with a classic case of a young couple and their new home, an old house they've just bought and are happily moving into with their young baby. One night while settling in, with a new baby monitor they got from the in-laws, they overhear what sounds like a voice in their baby's room. Spurred on by this, the husband Juan (played by Javier Guttierez) invests in an infrared camera...and discovers a mysterious figure sitting by his baby's crib. For the first part of the film, one feels like we're getting a traditional ghost story. What we actually get, both for better and for worse, is something entirely different. As Juan researches the matter, it becomes a story of parallel realities and other worlds. It handles the concept fairly well and at times actually feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone, which is a definite plus. The drawback is, novel as the idea is, the scares kind of take a back seat to the interesting ideas. That aside, for a made for TV movie, it carries itself quite well on most fronts. I think the one other thing I would count as a strike against this would be the secondary plot string introduced in the movie's prologue and then later continued via an old woman. It seems like it could have been interesting as a way to help carry the film along, and at a few points it does do its job of helping give Juan the extra momentum in his quest for answers. The problem is, a lot of the time, it just feels like dead weight, adding needless scenes to the movie that would have been better suited to either more directly fleshing out the concepts or at least trying to return some of the eery moments from the first half of the movie. As a straight up horror title, this is kind of a disappointment. As a movie in general though, it's actually still a rather interesting take on the parallel worlds concept. If you're looking for a nice piece of science fiction (somewhat, the concepts are inherently sci-fi, but they don't really go into the nature of them) this is actually a nice little surprise to look into. May not leave you afraid to turn off the lights, but could raise some interesting thoughts about 'what ifs'.
--
4 days left now. Hopefully these will be up within the next day or so. Keep your eyes out, since after this, we'll be trying to get this back to work on a regular pace again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)