Mexican Boy Done Good

I’m really digging the film work of Guillermo Del Toro lately. He works in the dark fantasy and horror sort of area, doing Spanish-language films and then bouncing over to English films for Hollywood. Even in low(er) budget films he manages to provide intricate, believable visuals and work his settings and situations into incredibly atmospheric and forbidding viewing.


Most people in this country are probably most familiar with the two Hellboy films, which were so much better than 90% of movies based on comic book properties. But NetFlix has some of the other stuff; the early Cronos, and his two period dark fantasies set in Franco’s Spain, The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth. Del Toro has described himself as fascinated by clockwork and insects. You can see this fascination all through his films, where even a creature as innocuous as a faun becomes horribly fascinating and frightening. Even though he's from Mexico, I get more of an Old World vibe from his stuff. Peeling paintings and corroded brass more than adobe and red brick, if that makes sense.

I’m still working away at catching everything he’s done. There’s a new film in the near future, Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark. The previews make it look like every other haunted house movie with a child as the central victim/avatar. But it ALSO looks like it could mine the same veins as Pan’s Labyrinth or The Orphanage, and that would cut the film well above the typical bullshit.

Del Toro was going to be the director on the two Hobbit films, but that fell through. Nothing against Peter Jackson, but holy hell! I would’ve loved to see an earlier Middle Earth through Del Toro’s eyes.

In other Spanish-language news I’ve also been catching up on the much more limited back catalog of Pedro Almodovar, but I’m not sure I can even comment on that weirdness.

Love Never Dies

Aftermath/Genesis is a DVD release featuring three short films by director Nacho Cerda. Although technically spanish language, none of the films have any dialogue, so the there is no language barrier.

The first film (not included in the title), The Awakening, is a student film Nacho shot while enrolled in Southern California. The plot is very similar to the well-known Carnival of Souls. It isn't bad for a school project, I've seen better, I've seen worse. It serves the purpose of introducing Cerda's questions about death and  illustrates a concept about the actual moment of death. The most notorious segment, the middle film on the disc deals with what comes after.

Cerda indicates in the supplements that one of his great personal horrors is the fear of what might happen to his body after he has died. His fears were not helped when he observed a series of autopsies in person. I don't think fear of what is done with our earthly matter is universal, but I think just about everyone would prefer NOT to consider it too much... even if there's nothing more to it than lying in the earth decomposing.

In Aftermath, Cerda posits nearly the worst possible thing that could happen to your corpse if the circumstances of your death require an autopsy. At thirty minutes long, the autopsy process is about the only thing covered in the movie, but that span is more than adequate.

One can go on the web and find out more details about this film than I care to elaborate right now. The film is shot very well, the sounds are clear (and all the more disturbing for that) and as I said above, there is no dialogue. The music is mostly archived Mozart but effectively chosen. I was very prepared to be disturbed by this film. I'd avoided almost all direct plot references, but one cannot really read anything about the film without at least catching the phrase 'unspeakable atrocities on corpes' or somesuch. So y'know, expecting the worst.

In reality, what the film presents IS horrible and IS disturbing. The lead actor has a really hard time with one particular scene, as shown in the extras, and I can't imagine it wouldn't be scarring. BUT. I had one issue that really kept me from being overwhelmed like so many other viewers. I couldn't believe in the effects.

When you are a genre film buff, one aspect of viewing and enjoying is cultivating an appreciation for conventions, technology, and trends at the time of a film's production. There's a synonymous requirement in cultivating taste in any artform. You don't expect a piece of gothic fiction written in the 1800s or SF from the 50s to be written appealing to modern tastes. Artists today don't emulate medieval church paintings, yet many modern art mavens still find the old works beautiful. You have to place the work, whatever it is, in the context of its time.

In the case of horror films, what scared 'back in the day' may not be scary now. Effects makeup that shocked or looked realistic decades ago may be comical to a modern viewer. But when you watch an older horror film, you may have to substitute admiration for what was achieved for the original intentions of the filmmakers.

The problem for me with Aftermath is that the subject matter requires extensive viewing and interaction with fake corpses, and I didn't find the bodies believable. I have an appreciation for what was accomplished when the film was made in 1994. Considering the budget and tech available it is pretty good. But unlike a lot of horror films where the effect is a brief killing or a short view of a monster, the effects are on display constantly. The doctors performing the autopsies are continually working with them. The subject matter is horrifying, but the immersion in it was really incomplete for me. I have a huge tolerance for bad makeup effects. These makeup effects are not literally bad, they just aren't credible ENOUGH given how much onscreen time they occupy. I couldn't just say 'pretty good for the day' and move on to the next scene. Or overlook a deficiency because it is quickly past. The bodies are always there. Being cut, sawn, moved, etc.  Now I don't have enough experience with dead bodies to really say how accurate the film is with these depictions. For all I know, accident victims change after death EXACTLY as in the film. But I was just too aware 'dummies' the whole time.

The third film on the disc, Genesis, was much more successful to me. Again, extensive prostheses and makeup effects are used, but this time they document transformations further removed from reality and so they feel, to me, more successful.

Genesis is also a thirty minute short. The story of a sculptor who lost his wife in a car accident, and is trying to capture her essence in a tribute statue to her. He succeeds all to well. I liked this film a great deal though there are no real surprises in the narrative. Anyone who has seen the Guinea Pig segment Mermaid In A Manhole, knows more-or-less what to expect here. But the care and professionalism shown in this film go quite a bit beyond just about any horror short I can remember. Ironically, Aftermath would be a runner-up... also really well shot and staged. Genesis is bleak, but not thoroughly disgusting like Aftermath. And to me, much more believable, in the immersion sense, despite the more fantastic nature of the plot.

Only Genesis really bears repeat viewings, but you can watch Aftermath just to say you got through it, if you dare. Enh, I may have just ruined the experience now that I've got you looking really closely at the corpses.

Check Your Kairo

Count another movie where the American remake is an epic fail. I watched the Japanese film Pulse, also known as Kairo (lit. 'Circuit), a very creepy if sometimes confusing technological ghost story. The confusion is deliberate since not understanding exactly what is happening is crucial to the film doing what it does and making the points that it makes.

Despite the murky nature of the narrative ideas, Kairo is quite well-considered amongst critics and viewers. Not so much the case with the American version. I don't think I'm even going to watch it. Frequently I do watch for comparison's sake... I watched Quarantine several months ago, and then recently, the original Spanish film REC. Quarantine and REC are almost the same film... shot for shot. And they both do their job pretty effectively. I preferred the lead in Quarantine, but I thought the lower-tech climactic horror in REC was actually creepier.

The American Pulse is so badly reviewed and for such fundamental reasons, I can't be bothered to spend the two hours watching it. I'll be pissed I can't get that time back.

Ironically, it was a pretty interesting trailer for the American Pulse that made me seek out the Japanese one.

À l'intérieur

Another notch in the gun for watching films from the so-called New French Extremity, and this one is a keeper, though that's kind of a dubious, guilt-inducing admission. Inside (À l'intérieur in French), made by a tag-team directing duo (similar to the Wachowski brothers) is not only cringe-inducing because of the subject matter, but severely creepy and scary... moreso than most any film I've seen recently apart from Martyrs, another film associated with the NFE.

The New French Extremity (not so new anymore) is a sort of 'trend' mock-echoing the French New Wave cinema of the middle 20th century. Recent French and French-speaking directors (there are some Belgian and Canadian films that fall under the envelope) have been pushing the envelope in regards to subject matter and depiction, and usually pushing audience hot button when they go too far with sex and/or violence. Although no genre is necessarily excluded from the NFE, horror films and dark dramas tend to dominate.

Viewers attracted to these films not only find directors pushing into directions no Hollywood (or even most independent) filmmaker would go, but they contain a sensibility (how very Frahnch) in how the narratives are developed that is startling and refreshing at its best, confusing or pretentious at its worst.... just like the New Wave back in the 50s. NFE films tend to be low-budget, small cast affairs, but usually shot really well or if shot badly... at least done so with intent. The stories on paper read like hundreds of other films, common plots done to death. In the horror films I gravitate to, abduction of a man/woman/couple by a band of subhumans is a frequent script. BUT. There is often a bleak, nihilistic, or dramatic approach that sets these films apart. Not plot twists so much, as directions taken that skew genre conventions. What 'good' filmmaking should be all about. Inside is a perfect example.

Inside is 'basically' about a pregnant girl who is the victim of a home invasion. And the invader wants her baby. Straight out of her womb.

Though the topic tragically comes into the headlines in real life sometimes, this is a violation that most filmmakers won't touch... or at least won't make the fulcrum of their film. Even if they DID make a movie about this (and a USA remake of Inside IS rumored now) nothing I have ever seen in American cinema makes me think it would be handled nearly as (excruciatingly) well. The fact that I have kids myself never even entered my mind while I was watching this. What the filmmakers did so well, was highlight the incredible vulnerability that not only the child has, but that the mother feels. And the portrayal didn't make her particularly weak or incapable of looking to her own defense. Beatrice Dalle, the interloper actress, gets my vote as perhaps the creepiest, most believable psycho-lady in years, maybe forever. My understanding from the extras on the DVD, is that the writer/directors did NOT have Beatrice's character defined so specifically, but Beatrice brought a bunch of ideas and they let her run with it. And she is a tour de force.

And wherever you might be afraid a movie like this might go... this one goes there. So many times with horror movies... or any film with shocking content promised... expectations just can't be met. This is one of those movies where its as bad or worse than you imagine. And that isn't just owing to the violence (which is extreme, borderline exaggerated) but the choices made... lighting, sound, music, all of it. Everything about the film is focused like a laser on wringing the most tension out of the plot.

And it never feels forced, at least not to me. There is a reason for everything. All plot developments follow right along. Ever wonder why no one thinks to call the cops in these movies? She does call them. They even believe her. They even send cops up to her door to check on her. They even figure out someone is in there with her. The movie is short, with no footage wasted for extraneous development. There IS character development, particularly with Allyson Paradis' character, the pregnant girl. She is the survivor of a car accident that killed her husband. She is alone and depressed, and not sure how she can be a mother to the child. She is played as a woman who has run out of tears, but not a simple filmic emo stereotype, and her quiet masks her real feelings for the baby to everyone around her. She doesn't 'say' any of this. There's no exposition really.

Like a lot of the films I discuss in this blog, this one is difficult to recommend. It is a really good film of its type. Hell, even the crappier films of the NFE that I've watched are at least interesting (I'm looking at you High Tension). The tears and difficulty in dealing with this subject matter were readily apparent behind the scenes. It isn't awful in the same sense Irreversible is because despite the horrific topic, forced caesarian abductions are not common. They aren't a tragedy played out every day like rape is. And weirdly, there IS a scintilla of sympathy on tap for the invader-lady in Inside. The fact that this film can be as intense and awful as it is, and still manage that, is probably the highest praise I can give it.

Psycho-Biddies

At the time of this writing I've got the film 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?' listed over in the 'just watched' section of the blog. Normally I only list movies I've seen for the first time. I'm watching through the Terminator films currently and I'm not listing them.

But I'm making an exception for 'Baby Jane' because it has been a long time since I've seen it and I want to draw a bit of attention to it. It is one of the earliest and probably the seminal work in the peculiar little sub-genre known as 'psycho-biddies'. Most psycho-biddy films are horror movies (yay!), but they poke into other genres too. I'm finding it interesting that certain scenes of psychological torture in this film are at least as excruciating and suspenseful as a lot of the modern uber-grue that I've been watching lately. This from a film released in black and white in 1962. Like I'd say with the original version of The Haunting, don't pass up quality films just because they're old, kids! The quality of the performances (though a bit melodramatic) from Bette Davis and Joan Crawford really help.

This is probably NOT the start of some cycle for me where I try to cram as much psycho-biddy watching as I possible can, but I probably will try to at least get the companion film, 'Hush...hush, Sweet Charlotte', under my belt.

The Limit

As something of a film buff, one of my interests is viewing extreme or so-called transgressive cinema. Always looking to see what is new and different (dare I say hip) in the genres most likely to be controversial or offensive. Usually this is in horror or 'thrillers'.

Currently France with its loosely-grouped 'New French Extremity' films is the forefront of my, uh, educational viewing. Most of these I've found to be pretty good, delivering as advertised; shocking, compelling horror that goes places US releases fear to tread.

I have a strong stomach and an ability to handle (at least for the viewing duration) different messages, themes, and subtexts... but if done 'effectively' I still react to this material something like the way intended by the film. All the stuff I've seen has certainly built some level of tolerance and immunity to screen horrors, but I'm not jaded. All my social and cultural boundaries are intact and in place, I'm just able to lift them up enough to see whatever screen controversy is next on the list. I don't really like poor filmmaking per se, and there are plenty of extreme films that are just dumb or cruel. Occasionally one comes along that makes me think about acceptable limits.

I think I've just seen the signpost for my limit. The film 'Irreversible'.

With all the difficult-to-handle stuff I've seen the first twenty minutes of this movie probably the most harrowing of all. Movies like 'Salo', although well-made, are held out as immoral and repulsive. 'Wolf Creek' is considered utterly bleak and misogynist. 'The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things' is perverse and nihilistic. Yep. Maybe true for some and all depending on your view. I can see the point for anyone reviling these films for the above listed reasons and more.
But they are all pretty tame, ultimately, compared to 'Irreversible'. There aren't many things I wish I could un-see... and I probably don't really want to un-see this movie either, but I'm damn close. As any internet search can tell you, the movie is about the events leading up to a rape and subsequent revenge, but told in reverse chronological order. A very early film in what would become The New French Extremity, the movie is well-made (apart from an overabundance of swirly between-scenes camera work) not some back alley straight-to video-quickie, though it looks it. It is grimy-looking on purpose, with improvised (French) dialogue that was effective for me.

The first scenes are set in a gay 'club' and features some disturbing scenes and characters, (the place is called The Rectum, so you figure out what kind of activity's going on there), as the two male leads march through the place looking for a rapist. These rapid-fire handheld shots culminate in a very effective, horrific act of violence that makes the viewer flinch the way seeing real violence on a war documentary might. So that in itself is pretty grim.

But moments later, Monica Belucci becomes the victim in the rape scene. THE rape scene. Notorious. It is nine excruciating minutes of unblinking, hyper-realistic degradation that the viewer is given absolutely no respite from. The camera just sits at ground level as if dropped there by some passerby in a hurry to get off the location. I guess Belucci should get some kind of kudos for having the guts to do this scene. She's been interviewed dozens of times about it, and seems pretty unaffected. But husband (and co-star as her vengeful boyfriend) WAS affected. Belucci asked him not to be on set when this was filmed, and he was in tears during the screening at Cannes.

I want to give props to the filmmakers too, because the film IS some kind of art, but it is difficult. Art can be difficult, I know.

The rape isn't the only thing in the movie, the rest of it is interesting, and it does some cool things with foreshadowing in reverse. The story would probably be strictly exploitation fare if it weren't for the methodology in ordering the scenes. Belucci and Cassel (and the third lead) are all pretty funny and kind with each other... which of course makes the shit you've already seen even worse. The film shows Cassel just go ballistic and loose a bunch of verbal abuse on gays, a transsexual, and a chinese cab driver. I won't say his behavior is literally justifiable, but the subsequent scenes make it more and more understandable... and I'd say the more idyllic stuff that comes AFTER the rape make the point perhaps even more because they show how HE thinks about her... what he may have lost.

But the rape dominates. It just fricking sprawls all over this movie. As it is supposed to. And given the absolutely horrible way it is depicted I'm not sure I CAN give props to the filmmakers. There is a message in here about the fleeting nature of ordinary lives... maybe even a 'hey ladies, be smart when you're alone' deal in there somewhere. I could definitely see this movie inspiring some women to think twice about their own security. Hopefully constructively. But it just hard to drum up a recommendation on any level for this thing. I suppose it could be used to 'teach' someone how horrible and destructive the crime is... I dunno.

I actually feel bad about the guy playing the rapist. It'd be easy to say he has something in him to be able to play the part... he sure is 'good' at it. I'm sure he had to dig down and do it the same way Belucci did. And the scene is one long take. She said it was done like six times or something. I'd feel horrible about 'going there' to do that scene... like Bill Moseley did during certain scenes of 'The Devil's Rejects'.

Couple of additonal notes about 'Irreversible'. Screened at Cannes, the movie was extremely divisive, as one would expect. No one 'liked' it, but some people walked out (fair enough) and others shouted at the screen or at the filmmakers afterward... including Belucci. Now I can't speak for anyone else, but whatever one thinks about the film and its motives, the rape scene is not exploitative. Its about as far from that as is possible to get, in my opinion. So shouting expletives at Belucci *feels* a bit like someone telling a rape victim they deserved it. She did a job, and she did it (too) well. There is barely any nudity in the scene, it isn't explicit in the sense usually meant when describing a sexual screen topic. People blame HER for the film getting made? Like the director wouldn't be able to find someone else? Or what? I'm kinda bewildered by that... not that Cannes audiences don't have their loonies.

That brings me to another bit of looniness. Roger Ebert. Reading his review, I largely found myself agreeing or at least understanding his points... until he starts talking about women's 'wisdom' in how they dress. WTF? Here is one of the most-read film critics in the world, a man who is known for his tolerance for genres that other critics dismiss, and HE throws in a passive reference to 'she was asking for it'. Belucci IS dressed provocatively. She was attending a pretty debauched party. If Roger saw the same film I did, it'd be obvious that how she was dressed made absolutely no difference to the attacker. The rapist, was an extreme abuser and hater and Belucci was a bystander to his horrible behavior. Being female she was going to get it even if she was 85 years old and dressed in a roll of astroturf. Not that Roger has never said something asinine before, but cripes! Here is the actual error on the character's part: going somewhere in a big city unfamiliar, alone, late at night, particularly as a woman. I'm not saying she doesn't have 'the right' to do so, but if there is wisdom lacking... to me, THAT course of action was it. Even then, the film sets up what happens as pretty believable. She isn't far from friends and she takes the route she does on advice from a young woman, after failing to hail a cab. Running across the rapist (a pimp berating a whore) in an underground street crossing was pretty much just the worst luck.

And THAT is the point of the movie, necessary or not, enlightening or otherwise. Through circumstances beyond your control, your life can be wrecked in an instant. Watch this film if you want the point made in the worst possible way.

Bonehead

Right. So I watched Quarantine last night and watching the end credits I realised I'd done something uncharacteristically dumb. I mean I do dumb stuff all the time, but this particular oversight isn't one I usually fall prey to.

I watched a remake before seeing the original.

Somehow in the hurly-burly I missed the fact that Quarantine is a remake of a movie called REC. When I pick out movies for my NetFlix queue or when I order DVDs to collect, I usually make such decisions based on a little research. I rarely just pop something onto my 'watch' list just because the trailer looks good or because it has a flashy ad on Yahoo! I dig up a little something. No spoilers obviously... and I don't necessarily regard reviews (especially on extreme films) as a deciding factor but enough info about plot or director to give me some idea that the film is worth my time.

Quarantine WAS worth my time. I thought it was done pretty well and some effectively creepy or shocking moments. It had a very downbeat ending uncharacteristic of Hollywood.

I should've known. Hollywood didn't come up with that ending, a group of filmakers from Spain did. The American group gets the credit for not lightening the ending up at all. But I DID see the trailer in the theater, was intrigued and so when NetFlix put it on there as a suggestion, I said 'what the hey' and added it to my queue.

Now after seeing 'based on the film REC' in the end credits and then looking into REC, I REALLY wish I'd been less impulsive. Looking around, most genre reviewers didn't think Quarantine was bad, but they almost universally consider REC better. Quarantine actually fares better than most remakes when compared to the (usually foreign) original. See Pulse, the Grudge or any number of J-horror movies. I hear the French film Martyrs has been bought for an American remake, but I can tell you right now there is no way that any theatrical cut of that movie will come anywhere near the original, which is one of the most disturbing movies in recent years. In fact, that's pretty typically why you want to see the original of anything Hollywood remakes. If there's a compelling story there it is often a much better experience if you remove big studio gloss, name actors, or test screening-directed edits.

Moral of the story: if you are into genre films, especially various transgressive genres or horror it really pays to look into what you watch before you watch it. I still put REC on my list because I do want to see 'the better one', but Quanrantine was made only two years after the original and is almost a shot-for-shot copy apparently. I'm going to now know everything that happens in a film that puts a lot of weight into the unknown.

Alone In The Dark

Watched almost all of a DVD set of Kolchak: The Night Stalker. I have one episode left, the last one… one of my favorites. Or I recall that it was.

I remember being a kid staying up late all alone (Mom and bro already off to bed), lights out watching this program before the CBS Late Movie came on. Kolchak’s whistle and the rest of the ominous theme song usually heralded some pretty good scares for the school age kid I was back then.

I wasn’t expecting the shows to be particularly scary watching them as an adult. As a child in the mid-70s I bought into the production values, the appearance of the characters and monsters, and the various traditions and tropes in television at that time. Buying the set recently, I knew this was going to be more of a nostalgia trip and not so much to actually re-experience those old thrills.

I also had the side mission of hopefully providing more fright show fodder for my own kids. If you’re a sadist like me who wants to put their kids through the horror grist mill, you probably know that scary shows that are kid appropriate can be pretty thin on the ground. I’d been letting them watch the occasional Hammer horror film but I needed more material.

As expected, Kolchak didn’t turn out to be very scary. There were moments where I definitely could see what was scary about them… what would definitely have been frightening to a kid but were more on the level of 'creepy' now. Spoiler: Kolchak sewing up the mouth of the sleeping zombie, or the old crone demon leering out of the dark… yep, those would have a kid lying awake in bed. But some of the monsters are dumb or crippled by bad makeup and effects. I might not have rolled my eyes at the time (there wasn’t much that was a lot better) but MY own kids brought up on Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter sure might. They’ll still be scared by some of it, but for them the monsters will alternate episode-to-episode between comedy and terror I think. The budgets for each episode seemed to get smaller as they went along. In early episodes there’s dudes fighting armies of cops, and invisible entities powering through concrete walls in slow motion. Later, the adversaries are all various types of ‘human’...that is, no-makeup-involved villains with various mind powers that take no money to convey on screen.

Couple the okay scares with the limits television programs had in terms of what they could show and this probably is a good go-to series to show my kids. I really only found some prostitution and massage parlor references in one or two episodes that might be objectionable.

What DID surprise me was how good all the rest of the show was. McGavin’s work as Carl Kolchak and all the other regulars on the show are excellent. I mean REALLY good. It is kind of a given that when you watch an older show, you are going to have to accept certain conventions of the time if you want to get any enjoyment out of it. This includes character types and a lot of the humor that goes with them. Watch an old Jerry Lewis show and you probably will find that a lot of what was funny then isn’t so funny now. I didn’t find that to be the case with Kolchak at all. The shit still plays. It still comes across as well acted and genuinely funny. This show is a really good case for a certain something… charm maybe… that is all but lost in modern film and television. Carl Kolchak is an everyman schlub, but a reporter with balls of steel, too. He brazens his way into everyone’s business, makes enemies all around… yet you can’t help but like him. And McGavin pulls this all off almost effortlessly.

Although aspects of the show make it a good window into the period, it is amazing how much has stayed the same in contemporary life between then and now. Even the clothes and hair in some episodes doesn’t give too much away, like the producers almost shot them with timelessness in mind. In those installments, if you just gave everyone cell phones it could have happened today. Chicago, setting for the series, doesn’t look much different in the present. There are quite a few references to, and use of computers (or workstations). Kolchak comes off as something of a luddite even at that time, so his use of a typewriter and old cameras doesn’t really date the show all that much to me. Sometimes the automobiles are the biggest visual clue to the show’s airdates.

I’m going to have to round up the two movies to go along with this set. I saw them as a child and remember them being more frightening (and being made for TV movies, slightly more ambitious) than the series. I’ve read some buyer reviews for this set saying the picture is dark and nigh unwatchable. I didn’t find that to be the case at all. Thank goodness I didn't listen to them. It obviously hasn’t been meticulously restored… it looks like ‘old show film stock’… but the color was pretty vibrant, and I didn’t lose any action in the shadows. I didn’t fart around with the settings on my TV either, a 48inch Panasonic plasma screen. Customers at Amazon need to upgrade their damn televisions or something.

There are only twenty-two episodes. And the two movies. The last episode that I haven’t watched here yet goes back to being more ambitious with the effects and such, if I remember correctly. Like they blew a final wad on the final installment. Can’t wait to watch it, but it’ll be sad when I’m done.

Until I re-watch it when I force it on the children.

Cinema Bits

I'm still into heavy video game times, but I've become bogged down in one particular game almost to the exclusion of all other play. When I finish that thing soon, I'll put up a 'blog entry on it and get on to some other game topics too. Here's some films or DVDs I've managed to squeeze in over the last few weeks:

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto. Rob Zombie's years-long-production animated comedy. Surprisingly polished animation on a very raunchy violent story. At first, if one is an 'elderly person' such as myself, it might put you in mind of Ralph Bakshi's adult-oriented cartoons like Wizards or Fritz the Cat. But the spazziness and surreal humor actually has more in common I think with Spongebob Squarepants or The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. Be warned: the violence, nudity, and cussin' are off the scale, though humorous in nature and not realistic. Special mention needs to be made of how hilarious Rosario Dawson is as a ebonics-spouting WHITE ho, and the songs are unbelievably funny, IF you really pay attention to the lyrics... particularly the Yellow Submarine-esque song playing behind Suzy X's first battle with the nazis. Open-minded pop-culture mavens should get this but keep it locked away from the kids.

Where The Wild Things Are. This was on my list to take my kids to go see because the book is great and a staple of just about every family library. I wasn't sure how they could expand a work made of about a dozen lines of poem into a feature film, but the production design and cinematography in the trailer looked so stunning I was willing to give the idea a chance. Then came the controversy. In the media, parents supposedly found the movie inappropriate. Well I like me some controversial films, so that made going to see this that much more appealing. I deliberately avoided actually reading up on what was so disturbing because I wanted to see if I could discern what the fuss was about myself, and see if my kids actually noticed anything objectionable from their point-of-view. First off the movie is okay. As expected from the promo reels the look and sound of the movie is unique and very well done, but quite melancholy compared to the book. I can see how the writers and director derived this feel from the story, but it isn't something I've ever felt myself all the times I've read it so it was a surprise. Also, the misbehavior on Max's part, which could be interpreted as just a mild issue read from the book, is treated as a serious alienation or ADD-related emotional disturbance. And this all may be why the movie was only 'okay' for me. It isn't like the tone was truly awful (to me) or invalid, but it wasn't joyous or cheerfully humorous in anyway. The wild things themselves are given 'everyday people' sorts of voices and they seem neurotic and dreary too.

I usually like my expectations to be challenged in a film, book, or game, but in this case my view of the source material is too strongly rooted. In the same way the Lord of The Rings were written in stone for uber-fans before Peter Jackson's trilogy of films came out.

So when I followed up on the controversy the next day I expected the emotional issues and realistically awful problems this creates in Max's family to be the point. There is also a lesson about abusive relationships taught to Max (by example) on the wild things' island. I figured THAT stuff was what would be objectionable. Well, the depressing tone, and unfriendly depiction of relationships was mentioned by critics... but what did parents object to? Scary scenes.

What the fuck? The wild things are MONSTERS. In the book and in the movie. They are stylized on the printed page as per Maurice Sendak's art style. Apart from doing the film as animation (or a Muppet Movie) the monsters, though derived directly from the book illustrations, ARE going to be more realistic. They just are. And what do parents think the wild things do on that island when Max isn't lording it over them? They must do what monsters do. So in an expanded format you are going to have to see some other behaviors. I think there are three scary 'things' that parents objected to. Shots of bones, indicating the wild things have eaten people in the past, a sequence involving the lead wild thing chasing Max down threatening to eat him, and a scene where that selfsame wild thing rips the arm off another wild thing... bloodless and treated humorously by the victim.

This is totally retarded. My kids didn't find anything objectionable in the movie. Nothing scary. They just found Max to be a bit of a dick and were glad he seemed to have reformed a bit by movie's end. And my kids are not jaded either. They get nightmares from images seen in Hammer horror films over Halloween (more on that below). They get apprehensive from previews of Harry Potter movies. But nothing in Where The Wild Things Are induced that sort of fear in them. I like Sendak's quote on the matter. Parents who find the content too disturbing for kids can: "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

Speaking of which-

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. This is a goshdamn awesome old movie. Everything a fan of Hammer films loves is in here apart from Peter Cushing. When I was a kid of about nine, my Mom started letting me stay up late on Friday and Saturday nights to watch old horror films and Kolchak the Night Stalker. Afternoons after school had the Harryhausen, 50's science fiction, and occasional Godzilla movie. But late-night was the dark stuff. Literally. I would sit close in front of the TV with all the lights out, some snack going uneaten while I absorbed the horrific spectacles paraded out in grainy prints from Universal, Hammer, Amicus, AIP and others. My Mom was a good church-going woman, but she just didn't see the harm in these rendezvous with FICTION. She trusted that I was discerning enough to keep a bedrock of disbelief underneath the enjoyment or fear. And it didn't hurt that I never complained about nightmares. Even when I did have them, the possibility of being banned (like other kids including my brother-- hah!) kept my trap shut on the subject.

Anyway. The movie. Risen is the third in Hammer's Dracula series. Hammer studios was known for very 'English' actors and acting, colorful 'stagey' costumes and sets, and most of all for putting the sex and blood into horror. The sex was mostly lowcut bodices on the victims and heroines, and the blood was the luridly colored 'paint' common to films of the 60's. But at the time of their release (before I was watching them on TV mind you) they were pretty strong stuff... to the point of being severely censored or banned in many countries. The over-the-top acting (and very theatrical costumes and sets) were the standard for films of the day, but the color and style really set the Hammer films apart. And of course Christopher Lee's version of Dracula, made more of an actual personality in this film, is just the cherry on top. The movie drags a bit in the middle as it sets up all the people and logistics necessary to move Dracula from the village he's terrorised in the previous film to the big city, but the climax more than makes up for it.

Spoiler Alert: It had been a long time since I'd seen this film, so I didn't remember a lot of specifics... even the ending. Considering this film was made in 1968, I still found the climax in this film to be more hair-raising and just-plain-awesome than dozens of more modern films... including just about any 'Dracula' movie you can name. Near the end of the film, Dracula has been 'staked' by the hero. This is a particularly graphic scene... probably cut when I saw this on TV as a kid... I'm mean, no shit, the blood is pouring out. But in THIS vampire mythos you can't just stake the vampire (at least not one as powerful as Dracula) you have to say a rite just after to complete the process. Well, no one manages to get the words out, so Dracula motherfucking gets out of his coffin and pulls this huge, and I mean huge, stake out of his own chest and gets on with the business of knocking the hero around and kidnapping the girl. When he gets back to his castle he orders the girl to remove this huge gilded cross that is sealing the main doors. She throws it over the side of the short cliff on which the castle resides and after the climactic struggle with the hero a few minutes later, Dracula falls off same cliff and lands impaled on the gold cross. But of course it doesn't end there. You gotta say the rites. This time a formerly-enthralled priest does the honors... all the while Dracula is spitting and writhing on this cross, and almost manages to get himself off of it. But the words are spoken, and the end of Dracula is shreds of his cloak and copious amounts of blood running down the cross. It probably doesn't get much better than THAT to a horror-seeking kid plomped in front of a late-night television set. How can Where The Wild Things Are even approach that? It isn't realistic looking in the modern sense, but once you spend the earlier part of the film getting involved and buying into Hammer-world, it's pretty damn intense. And I would still let my kids watch this. It was part of my growing up. I just can't see this as damaging. I almost feel like I'd be depriving them if I didn't at least give them a chance to see Hammer films as I saw them. Well better than I saw them actually...

The DVD I watched comes in a set and the print is so much more colorful and clear than anything previously available for any Hammer film. Watching a DVD like this, especially on an HDTV, will give the viewer some idea what it must have been like to see them in a theater, before grainy, scratchy, washed-out prints became the norm. And even with those faults, I still remember Hammer films as being the most colorful selections in my late-night fare. I'll single out Veronica Carlson here too. I met her sometime in the 90's at a horror convention in Baltimore. She looked pretty good there still, but watching this movie will let you in on why she was mobbed at that meet. She made wearing a bodice and tilting your neck for the vampire an art form.

Since the color and stageyness of the Hammer films lends an air of unreality watching one of these has become a sort of tradition with my kids at Halloween. This year it was The Mummy. Pretty much all the positives I mentioned for the above film would apply to The Mummy as well, subtracting the gore, but adding in very creepy living eyes in a dead face (again supplied by Lee), and the presence of Peter Cushing. No blood but still a real wincer of a scene during a flashback to ancient Egypt. I highly recommend Hammer films as a Halloween tradition. They still give my kids sleep problems, but I look at it as necessary toughening up.

Drag Me To Crapville

Wow. Color me amazed at how wrong 'the critics' are about the film Drag Me To Hell.

I rented this thing after reading up and down the 'net about how great this thing was. 'A return to form for Raimi', 'scariest film of the year', 'funny and shocking'... blah blah blah. Almost all the majors, Ebert, Travers, etc lined up with positive things to say about this movie.

A big thumbs down to all of them I say.

After doing the Halloween thing with the kids I was hoping to settle down with a good horror movie for the later part of the evening since I didn't have any plans to go out. I had missed seeing Drag Me To Hell in the theater, and was not happy about that. So for several months it has been my plan to make up for that miss by watching this movie over Halloween. Raimi has been an okay director in my book. I like the Spiderman films just fine, but this was looking to be a return to form of the Evil Dead variety. I should have known this would be more Evil Dead 2, my least favorite, than Evil Dead 1, my most-est favorite.

I went with the unrated version thinking THAT would be Raimi's Evil Dead 1 self really unleashed as opposed to the PG-13 rating that I thought he'd been saddled with to justify the budget that probably went into Drag Me To Hell.

As it turns out the budget was pretty big for a horror film, but small time for Raimi after doing shit like the Spiderman trilogy. He also wasn't reigned in by the PG-13 rating apparently, since he's quoted as not wanting gore to be the draw. That's fine. Gore shouldn't have to be the draw in (all) horror films. Having seen only the unrated version, I can't imagine what was cut since NOTHING about Drag Me To Hell rises to an R level. In fact, apart from a few very cartoony gross-out effects I'm not sure much of this gets to a PG-13 level.

This film has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it was the horror darling of the critics. The characters are likable but boring apart the different and awful cursing gyspy woman. She was great (and disgusting). Not enough to make a great scream flick. Not one bit of this movie's plot was a surprise. Not one scene was scary. The only thing shocking was how many different ways Raimi could force foreign objects into the heroine's mouth. It went beyond oral fixation. She's eating drool, worms, embalming fluid, a fly, a shawl, everything except, presumably, Raimi's cock since it wouldn't require any auditioning 'extras' to land the lead part. I take that back. It DID take some sort of bravery and fortitude to eat everything Raimi required on film.

What the fuck? What did I miss? I feel like Will Ferrel's character Mugatu in Zoolander. Mugatu laments at the climax that he 'must be taking crazy pills' if everyone else sees talent in Derek Zoolander where he doesn't. 'I invented the piano necktie, Derek! What have you ever done!'

I felt like that watching this movie. I sat there just waiting for the part that everyone found so great. And it never happened. The movie started out fine. Complete with a child, A CHILD, getting pulled down to hell. That made me think 'wow, this movie might pull very few punches'. The first encounter with the gyspy woman is fine too. But the movie never really tries to be anything but sort of blackly humored fantasy movie. Everything is too brightly lit to be atmospheric. Everything is shown right out in the open. There are a few jump-at-you bits, but they are pretty weak since they are boldly foreshadowed. And nothing in the movie is as grim as the very first bit where the kid is pulled down by demons... until the heroine herself is pulled down by demons.

What? Did I just post a spoiler? No. I just saved you the rental fee. Even if everyone else in the world likes this movie, I'm considering this the opening (and likely only) volley in my personal campaign against the film.

Blech.